ANINDITA MITRA Vs. SALIL MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.127 of 2010 filed under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The suit was preferred by the appellant wife Smt. Anindita Mitra averring that the marriage with the respondent husband was a negotiated one and it was solemnised on 7th Aug., 1999 in Kolkata as per the Hindu rites and customs. Her husband was a businessman. The family of the husband consisted of eight sisters and two brothers out of those, four sisters were married and the remaining four sisters and two brothers were unmarried. It was stated that immediately after the next day of marriage, all the gift items and stridhan properties given by her relatives and family members were taken away by her in-laws. In "Boubhat Ceremony" number of guests were invited, who also presented various gifts including some gold ornaments also. These were taken away by one of the sisters-in-law and the appellant wife was left only with one pair of small gold earring. These gift items and ornaments as well as her stridhan were kept by the mother-in-law in her custody excepting one necklace and one pair of earring and two golden churies. She was shocked by the conduct of the family members of her husband respondent but could not say anything as she was newly married in the family. Even her husband had not supported her in any manner rather than give to support in this regard to his family members without considering the desires and effect of such conduct of his family members.

(2.) Gradually, the conduct of the family members started taking a turn towards mental and physical torture to her. Even the maidservant of the house was removed. The appellant was a working lady and came home at about 7 p.m. and she was made to cook food for all the family members of the respondent husband. However, the food she was served by her sister-in-laws was not edible and sometime she found bugs and spiders in her food. Whenever she raised protest, there was no support from the side of her husband and her brother-in-law compelled her to have such food. Not only this, she found that the attitude of the younger brother of her husband was "a bit otherwise", during the absence of the respondent husband the brother-in-law used to enter the room of the petitioner appellant and exposed his ill motive. However, in spite of repeatedly being informed of all these incidents the respondent did not say anything to his brother and the latter continued to commit obscenity and harass the appellant.

(3.) The appellant also alleged that on one occasion when she was in the matrimonial home, an altercation took place between her husband and the younger brother-in-law which went to such an extent that the younger brother-in-law locked himself inside the room and did not open it for a considerable long period of time. Ultimately when she persuaded him to come out from the room, he embraced her and uttered "ami tomake bhalobasi". She was surprised and shocked but none of the members of the family including the mother-in-law and her husband, said anything to the younger brother. She was mentally perturbed with this incident and she went back to her room; when she asked the respondent as to why he did not say anything to his brother for his said misbehaviour, he kept silence.