DEEPAYAN CHATTERJEE Vs. PAPIYA CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -petitioner filed a suit for divorce and for declaration of nullity against the respondent -wife with leave of court under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act as the statutory period of one year did not expire from the date of solemnization of the marriage. The petitioner wanted to make out a case of exceptional hardship and the leave was granted by the Court. The petitioner mainly based his case and sought relief under Section 12 and Section 13(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He disclosed in his petition that the parties were married on 9th July, 1985 according to the Hindu rites. The negotiation of marriage between the parties was made through 'Jogajog' a Marriage Bureau. The particulars supplied to that office of 'Jogajog' by the respondent or on her behalf with regard to her age, educational qualification, family status and other particulars were all false and they suppressed the real position and thereby practising fraud obtained the consent of the petitioner to the marriage. He also came to know that the father of the respondent married twice and was not living with his wife. Though it was disclosed that he is a businessman but he was not so. Immediately, after the marriage the respondent started behaving in a peculiar manner and was found completely indifferent towards the petitioner on the night of Fulosajya, respondent firmly asked the petitioner not to touch her as she was not feeling well. It was a great shock on the petitioner to be behaved in such a manner on the night of Fulosajya, a cherished night for all newly married young man. He wanted to know the reason of such a behaviour, the respondent disclosed that her marriage was solemnized against her will. The respondent did not allow the petitioner to establish and sexual relationship with her. On 18 -7 -85 at about noon on account of Dashamangala the petitioner took the respondent to her uncle's house and the petitioner was astonished at the changed behaviour of the respondent She became very jolly and happy but as it was a Thursday the parties could not stay there and had to come back to the petitioner's residence. At this the respondent became furious and passed ugly and filthy comments against the parents of the petitioner. After coming back the respondent did not even show the minimum courtesy of meeting her parents -in -law. When the petitioner asked about her such behaviour the respondent replied rudely that she did not want him and also did not wish to live with him. At the exchange of words between the parties the mother of the petitioner knocked at the door. The petitioner opened the door and disclosed everything to his mother. The mother advised the respondent to adjust herself. The respondent after the mother had left made arrangement for sleeping on the floor much against the wish of the petitioner. But she remained adamant. This situation continued till 20 -7 -85. To overcome the situation the respondent was again taken to her uncle's flat on 21 -7 -85 where the respondent stayed for 3 nights. Petitioner also stayed there for one night and here he could have access to the respondent in the matter of sex but that expectation ended in a tragedy. The respondent disclosed that there had been many affairs in her personal life and she had previous experience of sex and it was nothing new to her. That is why she used to live in her uncle's house to enjoy a free life. He had the opportunity of having a look at the limbs of the wife and the petitioner was convinced that she had sexual affair in her life prior to her marriage and she had also made abortions. On 30 -7 -85 the respondent finally went to her uncle's place leaving her major articles in the house of the petitioner, the petitioner wanted to give it back to her on an accountable receipt. She intimated the respondent about this. The respondent sent a letter through her advocate Sri Kashi Nath Biswas which contained false allegations. He denied those allegations in his reply. On 9th July, 1985 the respondent's consent was obtained to the marriage by practising fraud by furnishing false particulars about the respondent and her relations. They would not have consented to the marriage if those false particulars were not furnished. The petitioner also asserted that it would be harmful and injurious to live with the respondent. Accordingly, he has prayed for a decree of nullity of the marriage under Section 12(1) and a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) THE respondent denied all the allegations made in the petition specifically. She stated that the petitioner husband is a Sergeant of Calcutta Police. He is very tough and rough in nature. Without any rhyme or reason he used to get annoyed and physically tortured the respondent and also used to warn her with threats of dire consequences by showing a revolver for shooting the respondent if she did not leave the matrimonial home. She was treated like maid servants and forced to do the job of menials. Besides this torture at night the husband and his parents, brother, married sister Indrani and her husband Milan used to physically assault the respondent and caused mental torture on her almost daily. For no reason and sometimes for her inability to do all the work of maid servant, viz., cleaning utensils, washing of the rooms etc. She was not allowed to take her mid -day meal before 3 P.M. and night meal before 11 P.M. on each day. As a result of this physical strains the respondent became ill and she was having high fever. At such stage of her health she was assulted by the relations of the petitioner. She used to be wrongfully confined inside a room very often under lock and key during the period between 10 -7 -85 and 29 -7 -85. All the ornaments given to the petitioner, respondent during her marriage were taken away from the respondent on the following day of petitioner's arrival at her husband's house. Thereafter she has not seen the ornaments. On 29 -7 -85 and also on 30 -7 -85 the respondent was assaulted by the fists, blows and kicks and on 30 -7 -85 she was driven away from the house of her husband with only one saree and a blouse on her person. That the respondent thereafter living in her uncle's flat and with her mother at Tangra Road Housing Estate. When living at her uncle's flat she was threatened over telephone by the petitioner that if she would come back to her husband's place she would be shot dead and as he is a Sergeant of the Calcutta Police she would not get any help from any where. On these grounds the respondent wanted to resist the decree.

(3.) MR . Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the judgment passed by the trial Court is not based on evidence. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the learned Judge was wrong in noting that the petitioner had conceded in his cross -examination that he got access to his wife in the matter of sex. Mr. Sengupta submits that the learned Judge has read the evidence out of context. He also submitted that to his show cause in the case under Section 125 Cr. P.C. there was no scope for denying the fact of consummation of marriage between the parties. Accordingly, Mr. Sengupta submits that the conclusion arrived at by the learned judge was not on the basis of evidence on record.