MANJU DAS Vs. CHITTA RANJAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is at the instance of the wife/respondent of a matrimonial proceeding and is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 24, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Barasat, District North 24 Parganas, in Matrimonial Suit No.43 of 2001, whereby the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit on contest but without costs.

(2.) The plaint case in short is that the appellant was married to the respondent on March 9, 1988 according to Hindu rites and customs after negotiation. The marriage was consummated. Immediately after the marriage the respondent noticed that the appellant was suffering from drowsiness and failed to act or react promptly and he noticed a mark of operation in the lower abdomen of the appellant. On enquiry, the appellant admitted that she had to undergo a surgical operation in the lower abdomen due to appendicitis. But at the time of negotiation such fact of operation was not disclosed at all to the respondent. The respondent requested the appellant not to take any tranquiliser in vain. Even the appellant claimed superiority in respect of standard or style of living of the respondent in comparison with that of the respondent. The appellant holds a post graduate degree in Political Science and she is an employee of the P.W.D., Purta Bhavan, Salt Lake City, Government of West Bengal. The respondent is an employee of the Indian Bank, Kolkata. After the marriage, the appellant attended office at Salt Lake from her matrimonial home at Kanchrapara, but she was in the habit of returning to the matrimonial home at late hours. This habit was even continued when the appellant was transferred to the office at Kalyani. On being enquired into the matter, the appellant reacted sharply by stating that she being an educated modern lady was not supposed to give any answer to anybody. Such conduct of the appellant shocked the respondent as he did not expect such behaviour at all from the appellant. It also revealed that during her pregnancy, she started residing at her father's house at Lake Town and she was admitted to N.R.S. Hospital. On receiving such information, the respondent rushed to the hospital and came to know that the appellant gave birth of a male dead child, but the respondent was kept dark about the health condition of the appellant. Even the dead child was not shown to him. After discharge from the N.R.S. Hospital, Kolkata, she came to her matrimonial home, but she was found addicted to tranquiliser and she showed disrespect towards the respondent. Even she refused to have sexual cohabitation with the respondent. She took her ornaments away to her parents' house on the occasion of marriage ceremony of her brother held on March 3, 1990. But on return she did not bring her ornaments and on being asked the appellant told that her ornaments had been kept at her parents' house. In that way, the appellant removed her belongings to her father's house gradually. Ultimately, on return from the office on March 27, 1991, the respondent noticed that a letter written by the appellant addressing the respondent was left disclosing the fact that she was leaving the matrimonial home forever alleging torture upon her. Immediately, the respondent rushed to the house of the appellant to bring her back but she refused to come. She disclosed that she was transferred again to Purta Bhavan, Salt Lake, and that it was not possible for her to go to her matrimonial home at Kanchrapara. On April 4, 1991, the appellant lodged a false G.D. Entry at Bijpur Police Station against him and the O.C., Bijpur Police Station requested the respondent to solve the problem between the two and to bring her back. The respondent went to bring her back in vain. He lodged a G.D. entry dated April 17, 1991 to that effect with the O.C., Bijpur P.S. Then on April 9, 1992, the respondent received a letter from the appellant which laid down the claim of Rs. 30,000/- by the respondent as she paid the said amount to the respondent for making fixed deposits. Thereafter, she initiated a criminal proceeding under Section 406/498A of the I.P.C. and a search warrant was executed on January 17, 1993 when the respondent and other members of his family remained busy in observing death anniversary of his father. Thus the appellant committed cruelty and desertion towards the respondent. So the respondent prayed for dissolution of the marriage in the matrimonial proceeding.

(3.) The appellant contested the said matrimonial proceeding by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the allegations levelled against her were not at all true. The finalisation of their marriage was held after negotiation and the father of the appellant fulfilled all the demands of the husband with regard to gold ornaments, furniture and immediately after the marriage she took transfer to Kalyani and she was not at all late in returning to her matrimonial home as alleged. She took tranquiliser as prescribed by her doctor brother on account of tremendous agony and tension suffered by the torture inflicted upon her by the husband. Though she underwent a surgical operation before the marriage, but it was not an obstacle for on-going peaceful conjugal life. The respondent took her to Dr. D. C. Dutta at N.R.S. Hospital and thereat, she gave birth of a dead male child and the entire fact was within the knowledge of the respondent and at the time of operation the respondent was very much present and Dr. Dutta himself disclosed of the mishap when he came out from the operation theatre. The respondent kept all the belongings of the appellant into his custody with a motive to grab those articles, and he subjected the appellant to torture and forced her to write on a plain paper about the fact that she had removed all her ornaments to her father's house. Even he assaulted the appellant in presence of his sister, Sulekha. She was subjected to torture and insult in various ways. Being afraid of her life, she left the house on March 27, 1991. So, the suit should be dismissed.