LAWS(CAL)-1989-7-34

CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY Vs. BHARAT CHAKRABORTY

Decided On July 19, 1989
CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY Appellant
V/S
BHARAT CHAKRABORTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the petitioner husband being aggrieved by the Judgement and Decree passed by the Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore dated 19th December 1985 dismissing the petitioner-appellant's suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The petitioner husband has brought the Matrimonial action of divorce against the respondent wife stating the following facts. The petitioner was married to the respondent in accordance with Hindu religious rites on 24.2.1980 at 1B, Raipur East Road, Calcutta-32, P.S, Jadavpur. He is an M.Sc. of Calcutta University and has been working as an Assistant in Indian Bank. He is a Table player and connected with All India Radio from the childhood. He is also a good sportsman and has good number of friends and acquaintances from amongst his colleagues and. co-artists. The respondent appears to be eccentric and a patient of schizophrenia having lucid intervals. On the occasion of "Baubhat" ceremony she demonstrated the state of her mental imbalance. The appellant's case was that a good number of the petitioner's friends came to greet the newly married couple. In particular they desired to felicitate the respondent and after their respective presentations to her, unfortunately to every one's dismay she began shouting pointing to the petitioner "Tomar Bandhugiri" Ghucheye Dichhi". The petitioner was put to great shame and ignominy because of such unusual behaviour of the respondent. Since that time onwards, the respondent has treated the petitioner with utmost cruelty (physical and mental). She assaulted the petitioner on several days with fists and blows and even threatened him with death.

(3.) She also treated the petitioner's parents most inhumanly and persistently demanded that the petitioner must shift to her paternal house with her which demand was absurd and the respondent's reaction to the petitioner's unwillingness to abandon his paternal home which was also the respondent's matrimonial house, was horrible. In fact she lost her head and created a scene to continue for days.