SWARUP TALAPATRA Vs. GARGI TALAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 18, 2006, passed by the learned additional District Judge, Third Court, District North 24 parganas at Barasat thereby dismissing the Matrimonial Suit No. 7 of 1999.

(2.) THE appellant instituted the suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the respondent. According to the plaint case, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on March 2, 1991, as per Hindu rites and customs at Deshobandhu Sarani, Village nischindhia under P. S.- Bally, District Howrah. The appellant is an employee of the Forest Department, Government of West bengal, and is now posted at Salt Lake and the respondent is an employee of the State Legislative Assembly, Kolkata. After marriage, the parties started living together at Narayantala West, baguihati. One son was born to them in the wedlock. The respondent misbehaved with the appellant and other members of his family even on flimsy matters. She demanded separate residence with her husband avoiding the parents of the appellant. Even she neglected to cook food on the pretext that she was to attend her office. She left the house of the appellant for her parents house at Nischindhia, Bally, after office hours without any permission from the appellant and spent there with her parents for days together. The respondent created a nuisance in the house of the appellant at Narayantala and insulted the appellant and his other relations on the day of Annaprasan of their son on August 3, 1992. In order to avoid troubles, the appellant took a rented accommodation at Baguihati leaving the parents and other members of his family at Narayantala. The respondent left the matrimonial home on several dates including February 23 and 24, 1993, causing great mental agony and torture upon the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent was examined by Dr. J. P. Haldar on February 27, 1993, March 5, 1993 and March 30, 1993, and the said treatment related to the termination of her pregnancy without the knowledge and consent of the appellant. During her stay at her mothers house, the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant disclosing her intention to settle at Bally, Howrah. Even she visited the office of the appellant to see the name of nomination relating to g. P. F. , death gratuity, family pension, etc. with regard to the service of the appellant. She retained all ornaments and valuables presented to them during their marriage and also during the Annaprasan ceremony of their son. Even she poured kerosene oil on her body to commit suicide but due to the intervention of the members of the family, she escaped the fatal accident. The brother and the mother of the respondent also insulted the appellant on several occasions. Thereafter on May 14, 1996, she went to her mothers house and since then she has been residing there. On May 18, 1996, the appellant went to her mothers house to bring her back in vain. The appellant went to bring her back again on December 20, 1997, but she refused to come. In the meantime, the respondent issued a letter dated December 19, 1997, through her Advocate intimating that the appellant should not disturb her peaceful living and if he did so, legal action would be taken against him.

(3.) THE respondent denied all the material allegations contained in the plaint. She contended that she was not a maid servant or menial at her matrimonial house so that any permission from the appellant was obligatory. She visited her mother with full consent of the appellant and his parents on rare occasions. The appellant drove her with her minor son and so she had been compelled to seek asylum at her mothers house. She was still willing to lead a peaceful and happy life with the appellant and the minor child if the appellant gave up ill treatment to her. The members of the family of the appellant compelled her to hand over all her pay for maintenance of the family. When she requested the appellant to pay equally, the appellant and her parents drove her away from their house with the child. The appellant never went to bring her back at all. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the matrimonial suit. Being aggrieved, the husband/appellant has preferred this appeal.