KEYA CHAKRABORTY Vs. SUDIP BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One connected application (CAN 1245 of 2017) seeks amendment of the plaint. The second application (CAN 10643 of 2016) is under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Mr. R. N. Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that after the decree of the Court below refusing to grant divorce to the plaintiff/ appellant wife, she has discovered, inter alia, that her husband married her disclosing a false qualification suppressing his original qualification. She has discovered that he does not have any educational qualification worth its name. Furthermore, an F.I.R was lodged against the husband being F.I.R. No. 16 dated 18th Jan., 2012 by the Park Street Police Station under Sec. 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, she says the respondent/husband was the accused in connection with the another criminal case being G.R. No. 3263 of 2013 arising out of Lake P.S. Case No. 290 of 2013 dated 25th June, 2018 for cheating some person of several lakhs of money and gold ornaments. Furthermore, he defaulted in payment of a bank loan taken by him from State Bank of India, Northern Avenue Branch, Kolkata.

(3.) Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that if these facts are brought on record, it will strengthen the case of his client for divorce.