SUDHA KRISHNA HALDER Vs. JYOTSNA HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a suit for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, First Court, hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No. 1671 of 2001 thereby dismissing the said suit. Being dissatisfied, the husband/plaintiff has come up with the present appeal.

(2.) THE appellant before us filed in the Court of the District Judge, Hooghly, a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 167 of 2001 thereby praying for divorce under the provision of Sections 13 (i) (a) and 13 (i) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the case made out by the appellant in the petition for divorce may be summed up thus:

(3.) AT the time of hearing of the suit, the appellant himself, his father, his cousin brother and a maidservant gave evident in support of the plaint case while the respondent herself and her son deposed in opposing the petition. As indicated earlier, the learned Trial Judge by the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal was pleased to dismiss the suit on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove the allegations made in the petition for divorce. Being dissatisfied, the husband has come up with the present appeal. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently contended before us that the learned Trial Judge in disbelieving the case of the appellant merely took note of the fact that physical torture upon the appellant had not been proved by any corroborative evidence. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the wife having admitted in her evidence that the husband is a perfect gentleman and she had no allegation against her husband, the natural presumption is that in such circumstances, there was no just reason for the husband to leave the house unless the allegations against his wife and son are true. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the husband being a sensible man and having retired as a Chief Engineer of the Government of West bengal, Department of Public Health, the learned Trial Judge ought to have held that no prudent man would stay away from his family and the property purchased by him unless the allegation of the husband was true. In other words, mr. Roy Chowdhury submits that no normal person, in such circumstances, will abandon his wife and son unless he himself is abnormal or of bad character. Mr. Roy Chowdhury submits that even the father of the appellant has given evidence against the grandson and, therefore, there was no just reason for disbelieving the allegation of the husband that he was physically assaulted by the wife and his son. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, in view of the fact that the husband is a reputed engineer and the wife is also a teacher of a school, even one instance of physical assault upon the husband was sufficient to constitute cruelty. Mr Roy chowdhury submits that there was no necessity of tendering corroborative evidence, as law does not require corroboration for the purpose of proving a particular fact. Mr. Roy Chowdhury points out that the wife has also described the husband as a perfect gentleman and did not even dare to lead any evidence of his abnormality or of bad moral character.