ASHUTOSH BANDHOPADHYAY Vs. MUKTA BANDHOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 2008, a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was instituted by the appellant/husband against his wife, the respondent in the Court of the learned District Judge, Hooghly. Here, he made very serious charges of adultery and desertion, against her. He said that they were married on 19th May, 1995 according to Hindu rites and custom. The marriage was short lived. It lasted a little over one year. On 2nd July, 1996, a male child Souvik, was born to them. On 31st July, 2006 the wife left the matrimonial home along with Souvik. The husband alleged that while he and his wife lived together, his junior colleague started visiting his house. The respondent developed intimacy with him. She left the matrimonial home to live with him.

(2.) Prior to this suit, the appellant instituted a suit asking for restitution of conjugal rights. This suit was filed before the Additional District Judge, 1st, Fast Track Court, Hooghly. The wife did not contest it. On 18th October, 2006 the appellant obtained a decree in his favour. The respondent never returned to him.

(3.) The present suit by the husband for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was also not contested by the respondent wife. The appellant gave evidence and on that basis the learned judge of the court below held that he had been able to prove his case of adultery and desertion. On 16th January, 2009 an ex parte decree was made. She made an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance for herself and the son. The son got a maintenance order but his mother did not. We are not concerned with that application. In 2012, she made an application to the learned District Judge, Hooghly, under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming permanent alimony for herself and her son. In this proceeding her claim for maintenance was very seriously opposed by the appellant's counsel. He argued that in the matrimonial proceedings it had been established that the respondent had been living in adultery. Even after dissolution of the marriage she was living in that way, with her husband's colleague. For this reason her alimony pendente lite application, under Section 24 of the said Act was rejected, he aruged.