SOMA BANERJEE Vs. SUBHROJYOTI BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14th May, 2007, passed by the additional District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No. 232 of 2001 thereby granting a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present appeal. The respondent before us filed in the Court of District Judge, Hooghly, a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 232 of 2001 for restitution of conjugal rights which was subsequently converted into a suit for divorce by way of amendment. The case made out by the respondent as it appears from the amended plaint may be summarized thus:

(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that the learned Trial Judge has granted decree mainly on the ground that in the written statement the wife made deliberate false allegations against the husband and his parents of demand of dowry and torture for the purpose of getting the same which has been proved to be false in the criminal proceedings initiated by the wife where the accused persons were all acquitted. According to the learned Trial Judge such false allegations were sufficient to pass a decree for divorce against the wife.

(3.) WE have gone through the judgment of the criminal Court acquitting the accused persons which has been marked as Exhibit in this proceeding for divorce. It appears that on the complaint of the wife under Section 498a of the indian Penal Code, not only the husband but also his parents were indicted and charge-sheeted. The father of the husband died during the pendency of the proceedings and ultimately, on trial the accused persons were all acquitted as the learned criminal Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution. It appears that the husband is an employee of the Central Government. The wife although subsequently by way of amendment of the written statement prayed for restitution of conjugal rights, in our opinion, the learned Trial Judge rightly turned down such prayer because it was apparent that she had no intention of living with the husband as would appear from the fact that knowing well that her husband would lose the job for the step she was going to take, she deliberately made the false allegation against her husband and parents-in-law. The aforesaid action on the part of the wife definitely comes within the definition of cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act. We, therefore, do not find any reason to disturb the aforesaid decree for divorce granted by the learned Trial Judge.