SWAPAN KUMAR KARMAKAR Vs. SUTAPA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2006 passed by the learned additional District Judge, First Court, Purulia in Matrimonial suit No. 70 of 2006 whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the suit on contest with exemplary costs and maintenance of the daughter.

(2.) THE short fact is that the husband/appellant filed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and that she deserted the appellant for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on the first day of March, 1993, according to Hindu customary rites at the house of the father of the respondent and thereafter, the marriage was consummated and one child was born to them in the wedlock. Since after the marriage, the appellant noticed that the respondent was not interested to lead a happy and free conjugal life and she often addressed the appellant as clerk. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant is a clerk in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raghunathpur, District -Purulia. The respondent picked up quarrel with the appellant on flimsy grounds and she left the house of the appellant by breaking her Sankha and Noya. The respondent suspected the appellant and whenever the appellant returned home from office, the respondent searched his pockets and office bag and on protest by the appellant, the respondent used vulgar words towards him. During their marital life, the appellant purchased a homestead land in the town of Purulia and a house was constructed thereon at the expenses of both the parties. But immediately after completion of the house, the respondent compelled the appellant to leave the house and she began to reside therein with the daughter. She did not allow the appellant to stay there for more than two hours. The appellant tried to lead a conjugal life in vain. The respondent became arrogant day after day and started abusing the appellant in filthy words. For that reason, in order to maintain peace, the appellant took a rented house at Purulia and he began to attend his office at Raghunathpur therefrom. But the respondent did not change her attitude towards the appellant. In such circumstances, the appellant got her daughter admitted to a residential school at Ushagram under the Sub-Division Asansol. The respondent also lodged a criminal case against the appellant and the appellant was arrested. However, the matter ended in compromise. For the last three years, there is no connection between the two and the marriage had been broken irretrievably. So the appellant prayed for a decree for dissolution of marriage. The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations. She also contended that she had purchased the land in question out of her own income and the financial help of her father and thereafter, she had constructed a house thereon after obtaining loan from the State bank of India, Purulia Branch. She was compelled to file a case under Section 498a of I. P. C. against the appellant because she was ill-treated and tortured by the appellant physically and mentally in 2002. However, the matter ended in compromise and thereafter, they began to reside together in the residence at Purulia. At that time, the appellant used to quarrel with the respondent on trifling matters and subsequently, he left the residence at purulia and began to attend his office from his residential house at Bankura. However, the appellant visited her residential house at Purulia and they spent nights together in different lodges at purulia and Asansol and thus, they lived together even in the month of June, 2006. In October, 2006, they took their daughter to Asansol. So the application for dissolution of marriage should be dismissed with costs.

(3.) UPON taking into consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit awarding heavy costs and direction for maintenance for the daughter of the parties. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Mr. A. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned Trial Judge committed wrong in dismissing the suit and he did not appreciate the evidence on record. In fact, the appellant examined himself in support of his claim but the respondent did not adduce any evidence on her behalf. The findings of the learned Trial Judge are not based on evidence on record or the pleadings of the parties. According to him, the appellant has proved cruelty and desertion and the learned Trial Judge should have granted the decree for dissolution of marriage. So the judgment should be set aside.