SADHAN KUMAR ROY Vs. SASWATI ROY BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the husband against a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) IT is not disputed that a marriage between the parties was solemnised on 14. 7. 78 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the "act" for the sake of convenience) before a Marriage Officer, shri Sisir Sen, for the District of Calcutta and 2-Parganas. Subsequently, on 2. 8. 1. 80, the wife, Saswati alias Munu, brought a Matrimonial Suit, being Matrimonial Suit No. 58 of 1980, in the court of the District Judge at Alipore for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. There was an alternative prayer in that, suit for a decide for judicial separation between the parties. In that suit, there was a petition by the husband-appellant in July, 1980 about lack of territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge, Alipore to try that suit on the ground that both the husband- appellant and the respondent-wife admittedly resided outside the jurisdiction of the District Judge at Alipore and that the marriage was solemnised at Shyamacharan Dey Street, Calcutta, outside the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Alipore. On the basis of this petition by the husband-appellant that Matrimonial Suit No. 58 of 1980 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25. 7. 80. The appellant had also filed another suit, being Matrimonial Suit No. 58 of 1980, in the court of the District Judge, Chinsurah, Hooghly, against the respondent for passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights between the parties. That suit was dismissed far default, on 3. 12. 80. Subsequently, the respondent filed another suit, being Matrimonial Suit No. 4l of 1984, in the Court of the District Judge,, Hooghly on 18. 4. 84 for annulment of the marriage by a decree of nullity and for: passing, in the alternative, a decre for divorce between the parties.

(3.) THE respondent alleged in the plaint that both the parties had been residing at Village Chanditala under P. S. Chanditala in the District of Hooghly since their birth. They had never resided for any period of time within the territorial jurisdiction of the Marriage Officer, who solemnised the marriage on 14. 7. 78. Any statements made by either the respondent or the appellant in the notice of the intended marriage under section 5 of the Act or in the declaration to be made by the bridegroom and bride under section 11 of the act were false and baseless. The respondent had to sign such notice and/or declaration on the threat, coercion and undue influence of the appellant. On 20. 3. 84 on enquiry the respondent first came to know of the contents of the notice under section 5 of the act which she was made to sign under threat and coercion on the part of the appellant. Besides making out this case for annulment of the marriage between the parties by a decree of nullity, the respondent made out a case for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, in the alternative.