LAWS(PVC)-1925-6-93

ISHARANI NIRUPOMA DEVI Vs. VICTOR NITENDRA NARAIN

Decided On June 24, 1925
ISHARANI NIRUPOMA DEVI Appellant
V/S
VICTOR NITENDRA NARAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner sues for a dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. The respondent has entered appearance under protest, and in his answer denies these charges and in the alternative pleads condonation. He takes objection to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition on the ground that he is a foreign subject domiciled in Cooch Behar; he also denies that he was residing within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court when, the petition was presented, and it is consequently contended that the petition cannot be entertained by this High Court. After taking evidence bearing on the question of jurisdiction, I intimated to the parties that, in my opinion, this Court has jurisdiction. The petitioner's case then proceeded on the merits but the respondent took no further part in the proceedings.

(2.) The respondent is a member of the Cooch Behar family and his marriage with the petitioner was contracted in Calcutta on the 18 April, 1916, under the Special Marriage Act (III of 1872). There is issue of the marriage, two sons; the elder Nidhendra Narayan born in July, 1917, and Gautam Narayan born in August, 1918. Between 1916 and 1923 the petitioner and respondent lived at Darjeeling, Ranchi, Cooch Behar and Calcutta. The correspondence indicates that in 1923 there was trouble brewing; matters went from bad to worse and ultimately in or about March, 1924, it was arranged between the parties that the petitioner should have a separate residence provided for her in Calcutta. This arrangement was carried out by the petitioner renting a house in Lansdowne Road, Calcutta, where she lived with her children. Though the parties separated, letters that passed between them show there was further friction on account of the children; the elder boy had been ill, and the petitioner and the respondent apparently held different views as to the advisability of their being sent to Darjeeling. On the 12 August, 1924, the respondent took both the children from the petitioner's custody and took them to Darjeeling. The petition in this case was filed on the 26 August, 1924, when the respondent was living at Darjeeling.

(3.) I shall first deal with the question of jurisdiction and state my reasons for the view that I have already intimated that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. I shall then deal with the question whether the respondent was residing within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court when the petition was filed, and finally, with the charges on which the petition is based.