SRI ASIT CHAKRABORTY Vs. SMT. RINKU CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two first appeals are at the instance of the husband and are directed against the judgment and decree dated December 9, 2004 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 28 of 2001 and the Matrimonial Suit No. 33 of 2001 which were heard analogously thereby decreeing the Matrimonial Suit No. 28 of 2001 filed by the wife for dissolution of marriage and dismissing the Matrimonial Suit No. 33 of 2001 filed by the husband for restoration of conjugal rights.

(2.) The F.A. No. 243 of 2006 has arisen out of the Matrimonial Suit No. 28 of 2001 and the F.A. No. 244 of 2006 has arisen out of the Matrimonial Suit No. 33 of 2001. Virtually, the plaint case of the Matrimonial No. 28 of 2001 is the defence taken in the written statement of the Matrimonial Suit No. 33 of 2001 while the plaint case of the Matrimonial Suit No. 33 of 2001 is the defence taken in the written statement filed by the husband in the Matrimonial Suit No. 28 of 2001. As indicated above, both the suits were tried analogously by the learned Trial Judge and by a common judgment dated December 9, 2004, the two suits were disposed of in the manner as indicated above. Therefore, it will be convenient if we discuss the First Appeal No. 243 of 2006 at first.

(3.) The short fact of the case as made out by the wife in her suit for divorce is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on December 1, 1997, according to Hindu rites and customs at the residence of the father of the wife at 10/A, Uttam Mukherjee Road, Belgharia, District - North 24 Parganas and the marriage was also registered under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage between the parties was duly consummated but no issue was born in the wedlock. Since her childhood the wife was brought up under the care and custody of her second maternal uncle at his residence at Belgharia where her parents also used to reside. The father of the wife once filed a matrimonial suit against her mother. That matrimonial suit was disposed of without any merit and the parents of the wife left the house of her second maternal uncle but the wife remained under the care and custody of her second maternal uncle. Her parents took her frequently to their residence and she was kept confined thereat and was not allowed to meet anyone. Even her parents lodged false complaint against her second maternal uncle. One Harihar Das, an elderly gentleman, who was a co -passenger of the father of the wife of a chartered bus was introduced to the wife and in course of time, he became a family friend. At that time, the wife was introduced with her husband who was then an office colleague of her mother and he stayed sometime in the house of her mother for two -three days and thus, the wife became aware about the negotiations of her marriage with the husband. Thereafter, the marriage between the two was solemnized on December 1, 1997 in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. Immediately after the marriage, the wife was taken to her in -law's house at Medinipur where her husband misbehaved with her for not getting Rs. 1 lakh towards dowry from the parents of the wife. After return from Medinipur, the parties lived together in the residence of the parents of the wife with the understanding that the husband would soon arrange for a separate accommodation. But with the passage of time, the parents of the wife came gradually under the control of her husband and taking advantage of such a situation, the husband increased torture upon her. Finding no other way, the wife left the house of her father and she was compelled to take shelter in the residence of her second maternal uncle. At that time, the husband brought a charge of kidnapping against the second maternal uncle of the wife. Under the compelling circumstances, the wife took shelter in the house of Mr. Harihar Das. In the meantime, she completed her graduation under the care, custody and financial help of the said Harihar Das. The husband this time lodged a complaint case against Mr. Harihar Das on the charge of kidnapping of his wife before the local police station on April 1, 2000. Even the husband inflicted inhuman mental and physical torture upon his wife in collusion of her parents. The wife believes that the marriage has irretrievably broken down between the two and it will not be proper to maintain the matrimonial relationship between the two. For that reason, she filed the petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.