appreciate the contentions of the learned Advocate for the respondent.
“Section 20(2) The statements contained in every petition under this Act shall be
verified by the petitioner or some other competent person in the manner required by law for
the verification of plaints, and may, at the hearing, be referred to as evidence.” Therefore, in a
matrimonial suit the pleadings assume importance and, the Court may act upon on the basis of such
unfounded allegations in the pleadings treating the same as evidence. Section 20(2) of the Hindu
Marriage Act thus provides that pleadings may at times be accepted as evidence.
Admittedly the wife/appellant made disparaging remarks with regard to the character of the
husband/respondent to the extent that the husband has got sexual relationship with his own sister,
with the daughter of the sister of his father, with very many other girls and even with the wife of
some other person. These allegations have been levelled in the written statement as well as in the
additional written statement of the appellant/wife and she has categorically admitted during her
cross examination that she has made such allegations being aware of the contents there-of. In view of section 20(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act such allegations may safely be admitted
and accepted as evidence of the appellant/wife. These unfounded allegations against the
respondent/husband have not been proved by the Appellant/wife. A man of ordinary prudence
would definitely be humiliated in the estimation of his family members as well as his associations
in terms of such allegations. The holy relationship of brother and sister has been maligned by the
appellant/wife to such an extent that it definitely pricks to the conscience of the Court to accept that
the appellant/wife is guilty of treating the respondent/husband with mental cruelty. Moreover the
appellant/wife has also raised question about the chastity and character as well as the behaviour of
the mother of her husband and thereby has definitely made an indelible mark on the mind of the
husband/respondent. It would, therefore, be not only difficult for the respondent/husband to
swallow such filthy allegations but also impossible for him to continue his marital tie with the
appellant/wife.
The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and mutual respect between
husband and wife. It appears from the allegations levelled by the appellant/wife that she has had no
tolerance or adjustment towards her husband far to speak of respect. The wife/appellant has been
residing separately for last 22 years without any effort of re-union with the respondent/husband. In
such circumstances, it may safely be stated that such unfounded allegations with regard to the
character and chastity of the respondent/husband and his mother have had telling effect in the
disposal of the lis. In our considered view, the learned Trial Court was perfectly justified in relying
on the decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 534 to hold that decree of divorce may be granted wholly
on the ground of mental cruelty.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
P R E S E N T:-
The Hon’ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
And
The Hon’ble Justice Debi Prosad Dey
F.A. No. 312 of 2007
Rita Bandopadhyay
-vs-
Abhik Bandopadhyay
Judgment delivered on : 15th June, 2015
Debi Prosad Dey, J.
Citation: 2016(6) ALLMR(JOURNAL)65
This first appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit no. 70 of 1994 whereby and
where under the learned Trial Judge has been pleased to decree the suit for divorce in favour of
respondent/husband. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgment and decree passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, this appeal has been preferred by the
wife/appellant on amongst other grounds that the learned Trial Judge could not properly appreciate
the evidences on record and that learned Trial Judge erroneously placed reliance on the decisions
referred to by learned advocate for the husband/respondent and thereby came to an erroneous
conclusion causing mis-carriage of justice.
The respondent/husband filed a matrimonial suit in the Court of the learned District Judge,
Hooghly praying for a decree of divorce alternatively for a decree for judicial separation on the
ground of cruelty.
Learned District Judge, Hooghly ultimately transferred the case to the Court of learned 2nd
Additional District Judge, Hooghly for trial.
Avik Bandopadhyay was married to Smt. Rita Bandopadhyay on 17.06.1990 according to
Hindu Rites and Customs and the Marriage between the parties was duly consummated.
After such marriage Rita/appellant started residing in her matrimonial home i.e. at the
residence of Avik at Bangur park, Rishra within PS.-Srirampur, Hooghly. Dispute cropped up
between the parties and as such Rita returned to her father’s place on 12.09.1990. At that time Rita
was pregnant. Admittedly, the pregnancy of Rita was terminated for some reasons, exclusively
known to Rita. Rita ultimately returned to her matrimonial home in the month of January 1992 and
thereafter she started residing together with Avik. Rita again returned to her father’s house at
Chinsurah on 26.05.1993 and at that time she was pregnant. Rita gave birth to a male child on
31.12.1993.
Admittedly, Rita thereafter never returned to her matrimonial home. In the month of march,
1994 respondent/husband filed a matrimonial suit against Rita under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act thereby praying for divorce. The case made out by the husband/ respondent may be
summed up as follows:-
(a) While attending a party in the paternal residence of the appellant, the husband/respondent
found that the name of his father has been printed in the menu card at the place of the
name of the bridegroom. The matter was pointed out to the appellant’s family members
but they did not tender any apology instead they burst into laughter and teased the
husband/respondent by cutting cruel jokes on him over the issue under reference.
(b)Despite persistent request from the respondent/husband the appellant did not transfer her
card for employment from Chinsurah Employment Exchange to Srirampur Employment
Exchange.
(c)The appellant/wife got her pregnancy aborted on 21.09.1990 without having any
consultation with the respondent/husband and without his knowledge.
(d)The respondent/husband did not claim any dowry in his marriage from the father of the
appellant/wife and he never received any such dowry from the family of appellant/wife.
Nevertheless, the father of the appellant/wife raised allegations against the
respondent/husband about demand of dowry and valuables from the family of
appellant/wife.
(e)The appellant /wife habitually remained absent from taking up domestic work and during
the absence of maid-servant only on one occasion, she telephoned her parents. The father
of the appellant/wife sent a menial to the house of the respondent/husband to work in the
place of the absentee maid-servant. (f)The appellant/wife without any reason and without the consent of the respondent/husband
stayed in the house of her father from 12.09.1990 to 21st Day of January 1992. Despite best
effort of the respondent/husband, the appellant wife refused to return to her matrimonial
home.
(g)On 11.09.1990 during the absence of the respondent/husband at about 11 p.m. the
appellant/wife was proceeding towards railway station presumably in order to return to her
father’s house at Chinsurah by train but she was intercepted on the way to the station by
some young man of the locality and then she divulged that she was proceeding to the
railway track to commit suicide. However, somehow she was pursued to return to her
matrimonial home on that night.
(h)The appellant/wife never helped the mother of the petitioner in domestic work and used
to abuse the husband/respondent and his mother in filthy languages.
(i)The husband/respondent named his son as Avijit Banerjee and the said name was
incorporated in the birth register of Chandannagar Municipal Corporation but the
appellant/wife changed the name of his son as Sourish Banerjee only in order to humiliate
the husband/respondent.
(j)Appellant/wife prevented the respondent/husband from meeting his own son and she even
flouted the Court’s order by denying the visitation right of the husband/respondent in
respect of his son. Ultimately, the appellant/wife refused to return to her matrimonial home
for ever on 21.01.1994.
(k)On 17.03.1994 the appellant/wife had been to Srirampore office of Calcutta Electric
Supply Corporation at Mahesh i.e. the work place of the respondent/husband and abused her husband/respondent in filthy language even questioning the chastity of his mother in
presence of the colleagues of the husband/respondent.
(l)The appellant/wife was very much reluctant to do any domestic work and she used to
abuse her husband and mother- in - law in filthy language by calling them “Rascal, Bastard”
etc. One day she threw a broom stick towards the petitioner which ultimately struck her
mother and thereby the wife/appellant used to misbehave with her husband in a cruel
manner.
The respondent/husband thus prayed for a decree of divorce on the aforesaid grounds
against the wife appellant.
The appellant/wife contested the suit in the Trial Court by filing written statement and
additional written statement. The appellant/wife specifically denied the material allegations
contained in the plaint.
Per contra, the case of the appellant/wife is that she had to undergo the process of abortion
in view of inhuman torture meted out to her by the respondent/husband and his mother.
Admittedly, the appellant/wife did not stay in her matrimonial home from 12.09.1990 to
21.01.1992.
The specific case of the appellant/wife is that she was prevented from entering into her
matrimonial home and ultimately she was allowed to enter into her matrimonial home with an
undertaking that she would abide by all the conditions of her husband and mother-in-law. The
appellant wife stayed happily with her husband and the marital status was revived on and from
January 1992 between the parties. The wife became pregnant again and she returned to her father’s
house in the month of May 1993. Thereafter she gave birth to a male child. Admittedly since
26.05.1993 the wife has been residing in her father’s house and thereafter she never returned to her matrimonial home at Rishra. In para 25 of her written statement the appellant wife has specifically
stated that her husband is a very mean minded person and her husband has got no personality of his
own. The further case of the appellant wife is that the mother of her husband used to say that she
would fetch more dowry had she been able to get her son married with some other lady. The wife
further noticed that one Mithu Mukherjee was instigating her husband in commission of such
torture on the person of the wife/appellant. Even Mithu Mukherjee had been to the father’s house
of the wife/appellant and told her that her husband was not willing to keep any relation with the
appellant/wife. The wife/appellant has further stated in her written statement that there was some
sort of relationship between her husband and Mithu Mukherjee even to the knowledge of the family
members of Mithu Mukherjee. The mother of the respondent/husband is a very quarrelsome lady
and their house is known in their locality as the house of phantom/veritable hell. In para 3 of her
additional written statement, the appellant/wife described her husband as a spoilt child of his father
at the latitude given by his mother since his boyhood and that the respondent/husband picked up all
the virtues, if not the vices, from his mother. Unfortunately, the appellant wife has further stated
that her husband/respondent developed illegal and immoral relationship with many a girl, wife of
some other person and even with his own sister and thereby described her husband as a beast and
that he has lost his character. The appellant wife further besmirched the character of the mother of
her husband by saying that her husband in collusion with his mother took away all the savings
including the last copper of his father who brought him up. The husband/respondent is a meanminded
person who even filed a civil suit against his father claiming maintenance through his
mother knowing fully well that his father is without any means. The wife/appellant thus prayed for
dismissal of the suit. The Learned Trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties was pleased to grant decree of divorce in favour of the husband/respondent on the ground of mental
cruelty meted out to him by the appellant/wife.
The legality of the said judgement and decree passed by Ld. Trial Court is under challenge
before us.
It would not be out of place to mention here in brief about the evidence adduced by the
parties to the case under reference. Plaintiff’s witness No. 1, Avik Bandopadhyay has supported
the contents of the plaint in his deposition. He has categorically denied all the allegations levelled
by his wife in her written statement as well as in additional written statement. PW 1 stated in his
evidence that on 17.03.1994 when he was posted at the office of Calcutta Electric Supply
Corporation, Srirampur at Mahesh, the appellant/wife visited his office and insulted him touching
his character and even the chastity of his mother. PW 1 tried to pacify his wife with the help of his
colleagues but in vain. The aforesaid action of his wife has virtually lowered him in the estimation
of his colleagues as well as his superior in the office. PW 1 vehemently denied the allegations
levelled against him in his examination in chief. It has been elicited in the cross examination of
PW1 that Mithu is the daughter of the sister of his father. That goes to show that Mithu Mukherjee
is in fact a sister of Avik.
Plaintiff’s witness No. 2 Bikash Ghosh used to work as chief clerk at Calcutta Electric
Supply Corporation at Srirampore in the year 1994 and he could remember that the wife of Avik
Bandopadhyay had been to their office who stated about the immoral character of Avik and his
mother. This witness has been cross examined at length. It is apparent from such cross
examination that in fact the wife of Avik had been to the office of Avik on some day in the year
1994. Plaintiff’s witness No:3 Asit Kumar Guha, another employee of the self-same office
categorically stated that the wife of Avik abused Avik and his mother in filthy languages in their
presence in the office of Avikbabu. It is also apparent from the cross examination of PW3 that
virtually the presence of the appellant /wife in the office of Avik in the year 1994 was confirmed.
In fact from the evidence of PW 2 and PW3, it is apparent that the
appellant/wife had been to the office of Avik/husband and abused him and his
mother in their presence.
Plaintiff’s witness No. 4 is an employee of Allahabad Bank, Rishra branch
and he has deposed about existence of one locker in his branch in the name of the
appellant/wife. The evidence of PW 4 has had no bearing in the given facts and
circumstances of this case.
Plaintiff’s witness No. 5 Monica Banerjee is the mother of
respondent/husband. Admittedly, she has been suffering from high blood sugar and
blood pressure and that’s why she could not even do the household work. She has
categorically stated that she was badly treated by the appellant/wife of Avik. The
further evidence of PW 5 is that the wife of Avik used to abuse her by raising
question about her chastity and she used to say that Avik has got illicit relationship
with his own younger sister and thereby she used to torture them mentally and some
times physically. PW 5 has virtually supported the evidence given by PW 1. It has
been specifically suggested to PW 5 in the cross examination that the character of
her son, youngest daughter and Mithu were not good and even being aware of such
relationship she did not object to their conduct. The appellant/wife has examined herself as defendant’s witness No. 1. She has corroborated
the statements made by her in the written statement as well as in the additional written statement
and also in her examination in chief. In cross examination, she has specifically admitted that the
written statement and additional written statement were filed on her behalf as per her instruction
and she had signed on the verification after going through the same and after being aware of the
contents thereof. She has admitted in her cross examination that she last visited her husband’s
house about 14 years ago. She has admitted in her cross examination that there was some
relationship between Mithu and her husband and house of her husband used to be described as
phantom house by the local people. She has admitted in her cross examination that she stated in
her written statement that her husband was a spoilt child and that her husband picked up all the
virtues, if not, vices of her mother and her husband developed illicit and immoral relationship with
many a girl, wife of other person and even with his own sister and is more than a beast as he has
lost his character. She further admitted about the statement made by her in her written statement to
the effect that her husband in collusion with his mother virtually made her father in law a beggar by
extracting all his money. She has admitted that her husband opened savings bank account in her
name at Allahabad Bank at Rishra branch with the facility of having one locker and the said locker
still stood in her name. The gold ornament of the appellant/wife has been kept in the said locker.
She has also admitted that since 26.05.1993 she has been living separately and that her husband is a
mean-minded person.
On the basis of the evidence discussed here in above, the learned Trial court refused to
accept the case of physical cruelty but decreed the suit by granting divorce by accepting the case of
mental cruelty. Learned advocate Mr. Bhattacharya appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that
learned Trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the case of respondent/husband with regard
to the ground of physical cruelty in as much as the learned Trial Court did not find any evidence on
that score. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant further contended that the
respondent/husband could not adduce cogent and clinching evidence to prove that the appellant was
guilty of treating the respondent in cruel manner and thereby the learned Court was perfectly
justified in rejecting such claim.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant however vehemently argued that the
learned Trial Court erroneously relied on the decisions reported in AIR 2005 SC 534, AIR 1994 SC
710 and AIR 1990 Calcutta 367. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant took us
through the aforesaid decisions and submitted that the facts and circumstances stated in the
aforesaid decisions are not at all similar to the given facts and circumstances of the case under
reference and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the proposition of law
enunciated/propounded by Hon’ble Court in the decisions referred to here in above.
Learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury, appearing on behalf of respondent/husband
vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court was perfectly justified in taking into consideration
the unfounded allegations levelled by the appellant/wife in the written statement as well as in the
additional written statement and thereby the appellant/wife has definitely treated the
husband/respondent in a cruel manner. Learned senior Advocate Mr. Roy Chowdhury took us
through the evidences on record and submitted that the respondent/husband has been able to prove
the cruelty to it’s hilt and the learned Trial Court correctly relied on the decisions referred to here in
above. Learned senior Advocate Mr. Roy Chowdhury pointed out the relevant paragraphs in the
written statement as well as additional written statement wherein the appellant/wife made
disparaging remarks touching the character of the respondent/husband as well as his mother.
Learned senior Advocate Mr. Roy Chowdhury has drawn our attention to section 20(2) of the
Hindu Marriage Act wherein it has been incorporated that the statements made in the pleadings
may be accepted as evidence for the purpose of deciding the lis.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Roy Chowdhury further pointed out that the first appellate
Court has had every jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events that cropped up even after the
disposal of the suit by the Trial Court. Learned Advocate has drawn our attention to the order
passed by other Division Bench on 28th day of February, 2009 wherein specific direction was given
that the order of alimony is subject to the condition that the only child of the parties to this lis, who
was then studying in class IX would go to his father’s house at Rishra on every Saturday after
school hours and would come back to his mother in the evening of Sunday. It is submitted by the
learned Advocate that such uncommon order was passed by other Division Bench of this Court
since the appellant/wife prevented the husband/respondent from visiting his own son. Learned
advocate further drew our attention to the order dated 14.05.2014 wherein it has been clearly stated
that even the order dated 25.02.2009 was not complied with by the appellant/wife and the
husband/respondent could not exercise his right of visitation in terms of such order. Learned
Advocate vehemently submitted that the appellant/wife not only withdrew herself from the
association of the respondent/husband for last 22 years but she also did not permit the
husband/respondent to meet his own son. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhattacharya, appearing on
behalf of the appellant/wife drew our attention to the application filed by the respondent/husband in
the Trial Court dated 18.08.2001 wherein the respondent/husband himself had filed such application before learned Trial Court for exemption of the order wherein he was permitted to see
his son at Hooghly Bar Library on every first and third Saturday of a month. On careful scrutiny of
the Lower Court Record we find that (order No.101 Dt. 2797) that the wife/appellant did not
produce the son at the Bar Library as per the order of the learned District Judge, Hooghly and the
learned Trial Court’s attention was also drawn regarding such non-compliance of Court’s order by
the appellant/wife. Order No.199 Dt. 18.08.2001 reveals that the appellant/wife received Rs. 130/-
from the respondent/husband. That goes to show that the husband had tried to comply with the
order passed by learned District Judge, Hooghly with regard to exercise of his visitation right but
ultimately being frustrated about the non-compliance of such order by the appellant/wife, he
submitted such application stating inter-alia that the order of visitation may be revoked.
On careful scrutiny of the materials on record as well as from the evidences on record, it
transpires that the wife appellant stayed for only 3 months in her matrimonial home immediate after
her marriage and she returned to her father’s house after 3 months of her marriage. Thereafter she
stayed in the house of her father for 1-1/2 years. In the month of January 1992 she returned to her
matrimonial home. In the meantime either she terminated her pregnancy or she went through
miscarriage of her pregnancy.
She returned to her father’s house being impregnated by her husband and gave birth to a
male child in the month of December, 1993. Admittedly for the last 22 years she has been residing
in the house of her father without asking for any sort of re-conciliation in respect of her so called
dispute with her husband. On the contrary, she made disparaging remarks against her husband
touching the character and integrity of her husband. She even had been to the place of work of her
husband and abused her husband with filthy languages touching the character of her husband as
well as the chastity of his mother. It is, therefore, apparent that the wife has had no intention to return to her matrimonial home or to revive her marital status with her husband. The son has by
this time become major. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of this case that the
respondent/husband has had no connection with his own son and the son of the respondent/husband
has been staying with his mother at Chinsurah since his childhood.
The appellant/wife did not adduce any evidence to prove that her husband has got illicit
relationship with his own sister or Mithu Mukherjee or with the wife of any other person or with
any other lady. The wife/appellant has failed to prove that her husband is a spoilt child and that he
has exploited his own father in collusion with his mother. The appellant wife has also failed to
adduce any evidence to show that the house of her husband used to be described by the local people
as house of phantom/veritable hell. Section 20(2) of Hindu Marriage Act may be reproduced to
appreciate the contentions of the learned Advocate for the respondent.
“Section 20(2) The statements contained in every petition under this Act shall be
verified by the petitioner or some other competent person in the manner required by law for
the verification of plaints, and may, at the hearing, be referred to as evidence.” Therefore, in a
matrimonial suit the pleadings assume importance and, the Court may act upon on the basis of such
unfounded allegations in the pleadings treating the same as evidence. Section 20(2) of the Hindu
Marriage Act thus provides that pleadings may at times be accepted as evidence.
Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Court was justified in accepting the
unfounded allegations contained in the written statement as well as in the additional written
statement as the basis for accepting the case of the respondent/husband or as the basis towards
mental cruelty. It is well settled principle of law that there cannot be any precedent on factual
aspect. The proposition of law, which is being enunciated in the decision of the Apex Court, has to
be accepted as precedent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 534 (Ajoy Chandra, appellant Vs. Anilo Kaur) has been pleased to observe in para 12 of such decision
that it is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give extensive description of the
circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of
the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the
conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental
agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is
not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting
immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of section
10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive
language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.
In the decision referred to hereinabove simply suspicion has been raised by other party with
regard to the fidelity of her spouse and such suspicion has been accepted as infliction of mental
cruelty upon the other spouse.
In the given facts and circumstances of this case, it is apparent that the appellant/wife has
prevented the husband/respondent from exercising his right of visitation despite having specific
order from the learned District Judge, Hooghly as well as from the other Division Bench of this
Court.
Admittedly the wife/appellant made disparaging remarks with regard to the character of the
husband/respondent to the extent that the husband has got sexual relationship with his own sister,
with the daughter of the sister of his father, with very many other girls and even with the wife of
some other person. These allegations have been levelled in the written statement as well as in the
additional written statement of the appellant/wife and she has categorically admitted during her
cross examination that she has made such allegations being aware of the contents there-of. In view of section 20(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act such allegations may safely be admitted
and accepted as evidence of the appellant/wife. These unfounded allegations against the
respondent/husband have not been proved by the Appellant/wife. A man of ordinary prudence
would definitely be humiliated in the estimation of his family members as well as his associations
in terms of such allegations. The holy relationship of brother and sister has been maligned by the
appellant/wife to such an extent that it definitely pricks to the conscience of the Court to accept that
the appellant/wife is guilty of treating the respondent/husband with mental cruelty. Moreover the
appellant/wife has also raised question about the chastity and character as well as the behaviour of
the mother of her husband and thereby has definitely made an indelible mark on the mind of the
husband/respondent. It would, therefore, be not only difficult for the respondent/husband to
swallow such filthy allegations but also impossible for him to continue his marital tie with the
appellant/wife.
The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and mutual respect between
husband and wife. It appears from the allegations levelled by the appellant/wife that she has had no
tolerance or adjustment towards her husband far to speak of respect. The wife/appellant has been
residing separately for last 22 years without any effort of re-union with the respondent/husband. In
such circumstances, it may safely be stated that such unfounded allegations with regard to the
character and chastity of the respondent/husband and his mother have had telling effect in the
disposal of the lis. In our considered view, the learned Trial Court was perfectly justified in relying
on the decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 534 to hold that decree of divorce may be granted wholly
on the ground of mental cruelty.
Learned senior Advocate Mr. Roy Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the respondent
/husband has relied on the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 1675(Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli) in support of his contentions. In para 78 of the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed as follows:-
“We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has
broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of
that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the
parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be
surmised that the matrimonial bond is broken beyond repair. The marriage becomes a
fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such
cases do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for
the feelings and emotions of the parties.”
It is apparent from the discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs that the marital tie
between the parties to this case has virtually become non-existent since January 1994 and thereafter
the parties have involved themselves in a long standing lis on the issue of continuation of their
relationship. The nature of allegations raised by the appellant / wife has definitely made it
impossible on the part of the respondent/husband to continue their relationship with each other as
husband and wife. The appellant /wife did not even spare the character and chastity of the mother
of husband/respondent. She has also made serious allegations against the character of her
husband/respondent. She did not even spare the sisters and other relations of her husband while
making such obnoxious allegations against her husband. In such circumstances in our considered
view, it may safely be stated that the husband/respondent would in no way be interested to revive
his marital status with the appellant/wife and the marital status in between the parties has broken
down beyond repair in view of such mental cruelty meted out by the appellant /wife to her husband. In the decision reported in AIR 1994 SC 710 (V. Bhagat, appellant Vs. M.D. Bhagat,
respondent), the wife/ respondent made some disparaging remarks against the husband/appellant in
the written statement but failed to prove the same in evidence. The matrimonial suit was decreed
holding inter-alia that the husband was treated with mental cruelty by the wife. In the aforesaid
decision (para 17), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that unfounded allegations made by
wife in a written statement against her husband and other members of the family being lunatic
constitute mental cruelty. The said decision is squarely applicable in the given facts and
circumstances of this case.
In the decision reported in AIR 1990 Calcutta 367(Smt. Santana Banerjee Vs.
Sachindranath Banerjii), the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta has accepted that persistent making of
disparaging, derogatory remarks by the wife against husband and his close relations about their
character in written statement as well as making false allegations by wife against husband that he
was having illicit sexual relation with office colleague and false allegation by wife against husband
of sexual perversity and bestiality amounted to mental cruelty justifying a decree of divorce.
After careful consideration of the decision referred to here in above we do hold that the
appellant wife raised unfounded allegations against the respondent/ husband and his mother to such
an extent that it would be impossible on the part of the husband of the respondent to continue with
the marital tie and such unfounded allegations of the appellant /wife may safely be accepted as
evidence in view of section 20(2) of Hindu Marriage Act.
To sum up the discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs, it is crystal clear that learned
Trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that the respondent/husband was meted out with
mental cruelty by the appellant/wife. The evidences on record at least justify that the appellant/wife had been to the office of respondent/husband and abused him in presence of his
office colleagues.
Secondly the appellant/wife obviously with some oblique purposes prevented the
respondent/husband from meeting his own son.
The appellant/wife raised serious allegations against the character and integrity of her
husband and while doing so she did not even spare the sister of her husband.
The appellant/wife also did not spare the sister father and mother of her husband while
raising such unfounded allegations against them in her written statement as well as in additional
written statement.
The appellant/wife also tried to justify such allegations while deposing before learned Trial
Court.
The appellant/wife specifically admitted before the learned Trial Court that she had made
such allegations being fully aware about the contents there of.
In the given facts and circumstances we find that learned Trial Court was perfectly justified
in decreeing the suit for divorce accepting the case of mental cruelty on the basis of such
unfounded allegation contained in the written statement as well as in the additional written
statement.
It would be impossible on the part of the respondent/husband to continue with the marital
tie in view of such allegations levelled against him by the appellant/wife. The appellant/wife has
virtually damaged the very basis of her marital tie to such an extent that the same cannot be
repaired in any view of the matter.
We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the
learned Trial Judge. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed without cost. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as
expeditiously as possible.
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J Debi Prosad Dey, J.
I agree
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J
No comments:
Post a Comment