BHABATOSH KUMAR BASU ROY Vs. BHAJANA RANI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.5.2010 (decree signed on 13.8.2008) passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Court, Faridpur in Family Appeal No. 20 of 2008 dismissing the appeal and affirming those dated 01.7.2008 (decree signed on 13.8.2008) passed by the learned Assistant Judge and ex-officio Family Judge, Boalmari, Faridpur in Family Suit No. 128 of 2005 decreeing the suit should not be set-aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

(2.) The brief fact relevant for disposal of this Rule is that the opposite party as plaintiff on 4.10.2005 instituted the aforesaid Family Suit No.49 of 2005 before the Family Court, Boalmari, Faridpur claiming an amount of Taka 3000+2000+1500=6,500/= per month on account of maintenance for her and her mother and servant. The said suit was subsequently renumbered as Family Suit No.128 of 2005. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that the defendant Bhabotosh Kumar Roy after the death of his first wife married the plaintiff according to Hindu Law on 6.8.2000 and on that day the defendant took the plaintiff to his house and started living there as husband and wife. Although, their conjugal life was not happy one as the defendant used to maltreat with her claiming dowry and ultimately plaintiff filed Nari-O-Shishu Case against the defendant, who got an order of acquittal in the said criminal case and after being acquitted the plaintiff on 13.7.2005 made a declaration by executing an affidavit being No. 186 cancelling such marriage and thereafter, finally on 30.09.2005 the defendant refused to give any maintenance to the plaintiff and hence, the suit.

(3.) That the defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegation of the plaint and contended inter alia that there was no presentation of gold or cloth on 17.02.2000 at the house of the plaintiff as precondition of marriage nor there was marriage solemnization on 6.8.2000 according to Hindu rites at Kathin Kalibari Temple and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost as being false, and fabricated one.