LAWS(ORI)-1978-9-14

RAMESH CHANDRA RAY Vs. SMT. NANDITA RAY

Decided On September 26, 1978
Ramesh Chandra Ray Appellant
V/S
Smt. Nandita Ray Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the confirming decision of the District Judge, Sambalpur in a matrimonial case filed by the husband against his wife for judicial separation. The Appellant initially prayed for a decree for divorce or for annulment of marriage or for judicial separation on the ground of unchastity, insanity cruelty and desertion on the part of his wife. Subsequently, after hearing commenced and some witnesses were examined, the plaint was amended and the prayer has been limited only to a decree for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) THE parties are governed by Dayabhag School of Hindu Law and are original residents of Calcutta. Their marriage took place on 12 -8 -1964 at the place of the Respondent, i.e. 14 Despriya Park, West Calcutta according to Hindu rites and customs. The Appellant is a member of the Indian Administrative Service of Orissa cadre. He was posted at Bhawanipatna, Sambalpur, Banki, Padampur, Nawapara and Rayagada. The Respondent lived with him at all these places and two issues were born out of their wedlock a son on 19 -2 -1966 and a daughter on 13 -3 -1967. It is alleged that some time after the marriage, the Appellant discovered that the Respondent was suffering from a typical type of unbalanced mind which was exhibited by her acts, conduct and ways of life. Even though the Respondent read up to B.A. and comes of a well educated family, she possessed repulsive and unhygienic habits, inasmuch as she never washed her teeth or tongue, never kept her hair tidy and did not take care of her dresses and clothes Such habits on the part of the Respondent produced a repulsive smell around her and in spite of repeated requests by the Appellant there was no improvement in the habits of the Respondent. It is further alleged that the Respondent was unresponsive, indifferent and apathetic to the Appellant's domestic expectations, desires and conjugal comforts. On several occasions, the Appellant on return from his office found the Respondent rude, irritative and abusive with violent outburst of temper, seeking to strike her head against the wall or some hard substance like glass, stone or paperweight and sometimes seeking to cut her throat by razor blade. On account of such acts and conduct on the part of the Respondent, the Appellant had to pass sleepless nights. The Respondent shunned the company of the Appellant and declined to move out with him in the society. In January 1965, the Appellant took the Respondent to a psychoanalyst at Calcutta who prescribed some medicines. Some -time thereafter, the Respondent was about to swallow the entire bottle of medicine in an irritative mood and the Appellant threw away the bottle. The Respondent never agreed to the course of treatment arranged by the Appellant. On 3 -5 -1965, the Appellant came to know that the Respondent had swallowed 25 'Sequil' tablets and she was removed to the hospital for treatment. The Respondent explained to the police at Calcutta that she was not having sleep and by mistake she had taken the pills meant for her sister's treatment for insanity. The Appellant has described this as an attempt to commit suicide. A week thereafter, the Respondent joined the Appellant at Banki. At that time Respondent was pregnant. The conduct and habits of the Respondent showed no improvement and resulted in continuing physical and mental distress on the part of the Appellant. On 19 -2 -1966 the Respondent gave birth to the first child at Calcutta. While the Appellant was at Rayagada the Respondent joined him sometime around 7 -6 -1966. No improvement was also noticed at that time in the conduct and habits of the Respondent. The Respondent started sleeping separately from 10 -6 -1966 and was not taking care of the child and, therefore, the Appellant had to look after the comforts of the child. The Respondent thereafter again left for Calcutta where she gave birth to the second child on 13 -3 -1967. She joined the Appellant at Sambalpur on 27 -7 -1907 with her first child, leaving the second child at Calcutta. The Respondent continued her obnoxious habits and conduct resulting in mental pain and distress of the Appellant. In October 1967, the Respondent went back to Calcutta again and came back in January, 1968. In April or May, 1968, the Respondent took some sedative drugs of a very higher dose and continued to live separately from the Appellant.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that though the case of the Appellant was based on cruelty and desertion, he has limited the case only to cruelty and the question of desertion has not been pressed.