Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sg Ct. 8 Hafiza Hasen (Nee Hafiza ... vs Dr. Imam Hosen on 18 February, 2022
FA 75 of 2018
Item-10 18-02-2022 CAN 3 of 2021
sg Ct. 8 Hafiza Hasen (nee Hafiza Shaikh Jamal)
Versus
Dr. Imam Hosen
(Through Video Conference)
Mr. Swagata Datta, Adv.
...for the appellant
Ms. Sohini Bhattacharyya, Adv.
...for the respondent
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at
Kolkata, in Matrimonial Suit No. 40 of 2007 allowing the suit
filed by the opposite party/husband for dissolution of
marriage under Section 27(1)(d)(e) of the Special Marriage
Act, 1954.
The suit was instituted on 22nd February, 2007. The
opposite party/husband alleged that the appellant/wife was
abusive and suspicious in character. She used to misbehave
with the family members of the husband. She is also a
psychiatric patient and in spite of all arrangements being
made, she did not cooperate with the husband in continuing
with her treatment. As a result of her suspicious character, the
reputation of the husband was tarnished and her behaviour
was not at all conducive to live with her peacefully. She
continued with such mental cruelty towards her husband
throughout her marital life, in spite of request being made to
mend herself. Moreover, false case under Section 498A of
the I.P.C and under Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act was initiated by her discharging the conjugal
relationship. In order to create further pressure on the
husband/respondent, the appellant/wife made attempts to
commit suicide three or four occasions.
The appellant/wife in her written statement denied all
the allegations. She asserted that one of her neighbour was
used to look and comment indecently, but her husband did not
care. She was not a psychiatric patient. Due to wrong
diagnosis of the doctor, she became physically week. The
petitioner exerted to create pressure upon her to bring money
and assets of her parents and she was tortured mentally and
physically by the petitioner. As she was a divorcee before
marriage with the petitioner, so she tolerated everything. The
petitioner's brother and wife and some other in-laws used to
create pressure on her and behaved rudely. She alleged that
the petitioner was involved in an extra-marital affair with
Kaveri Sen, a student of his college. Such extra-marital
relationship has ruined the relationship of the appellant and
her husband.
The learned Trial Judge dismissed the claim made
under Section 24(1)(i) of the Special Marriage Act but
decreed the suit under Section 27(1)(d)(e) of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954. The learned Trial Judge in returning the
finding in favour of the respondent/husband had relied upon
the contradiction in the evidence of wife in relation to her
allegations against a neighbour who alleged to have disturbed
her or looked at her or made indecent comments. The
respondent was able to prove that the wife was suspicious in
nature and she would not even spare his students and
colleagues of her husband from her imagination of illicit
relation with him. The appellant made reckless remarks
against a student of her husband, namely, Kaveri Sen in her
complaint under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation of the wife was that due to extra-marital illicit
intimacy, the husband tortured the wife/appellant. The
petitioner exhibited certified copy of F.I.R. and charge-sheet
in connection with Baguiati Police Station Case No. 11 of
2007 dated 11th August, 2007 being Exhibit-20, wherefrom it
appears that the wife/appellant had filed a case under Section
498(A)/406 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband,
Ms. Kaveri Sen, Mujibar Rahaman and Mukhtar Begum.
After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet wherein
it has been that there is no evidence against Kaveri Sen. It
does not appear that any application was filed by the wife
against the charge-sheet or that she prayed for re-
investigation. The matter was ended there. There was also no
cogent evidence on record to presume that Kaveri Sen had
any sort of extra-marital relationship with the opposite
party/husband.
While reckless allegations relating to the character of a
person having no basis certainly would amount to mental
cruelty and would tarnish the image and reputation of a
person who was the Professor in English. This evidence was
sufficient to return a finding in favour of the husband under
the 27(1)(i) of the Special Marriage Act. The cruelty was
contumacious in nature and till now, the proceeding under the
Domestic Violence Act is pending.
However, we feel that while decreeing the suit in favour
of the opposite party/husband, the learned Trial Court ought
to have made some provision of permanent alimony of the
respondent even in the absence of any application filed by the
wife. Presumably, no application was filed as the wife did not
accept the decree and the said decree is under challenge.
Now, we confirm the decree under challenge. We grant
permanent alimony to the wife considering her age and that
she is unemployed. The husband shall accordingly, pay a
permanent alimony for a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month from
the month January, 2022. The husband shall bear all medical
expenses including hospitalization, electricity charges,
municipal rates and taxes and society charges in connection
with the residential house. The flat presently under the
occupation of the wife shall remain in her occupation till her
death. The arrears maintenance i.e. from the months of
January, 2022 and February, 2022 shall be paid by 28 th
February, 2022 and on and from March, 2022, the permanent
alimony shall be paid on or before 7th of each succeeding
month.
The wife/appellant though her learned Counsel has
given an undertaking that she would withdraw all pending
cases against her husband.
The appeal and the application stand disposed of with
the aforesaid modification.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite
formalities.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
