Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Tamojit Bose vs Smt. Moumita Roy on 31 October, 2022
31.10.2022
SL No.33
Court No.8
(gc)
FA 111 of 2021
Sri Tamojit Bose
Vs.
Smt. Moumita Roy
Mr. Rachit Lakhmani,
...for the Appellant.
Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharjee,
Mr. Rajarshi Kundu,
...for the Respondent.
The appellant is the husband.
The appeal is arising out of a judgment and decree
passed by the learned Trial Judge in MAT Suit No.266
of 2019 in an application filed under Section 27 of the
Special Marriage Act, 1954. The husband filed the
application for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The marriage is admitted.
Amongst various acts of cruelty, the appellant
alleged the abnormal behaviour of the wife at times
which the wife had alleged is due to black magic
performed by the mother of the petitioner with a view to
due harm. The appellant alleged that the respondent
regularly used to pressurize the plaintiff to pay huge
sums of money for visiting "tantriks" and the plaintiff
had no option to abide by her dictates. Lastly the
appellant demanded Rs.4 lacs from the plaintiff to pay
to a tantric cause harm to her mother-in-law which the
plaintiff refused to pay. Apart from the aforesaid, the
plaintiff alleged that he was treated badly and he was
shocked to learn from common friends and relatives
that the respondent had introduced the plaintiff to them
as her driver.
The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on the
ground that in order to prove cruelty, corroborative
evidence would be required. We are unable to accept
the said finding. If the facts are known to the parties
alone and those facts are satisfactorily proved, the
Court cannot insist for corroboration. The law does not
require that uncorroborated testimony cannot be
accepted. Corroboration to material facts may not be
possible in all cases where it is solely within the special
knowledge of the parties. It is a matter of believe and
disbelieve.
In the instant case, the wife had enough
opportunity to appear and contest the suit by filing the
written statement and denying the material allegations.
Insofar as the allegation of doing harm to the mother of
the plaintiff and the allegation that her abnormal
behavior was due to some black magic of her mother-in-
law, it is difficult to have a corroborative evidence. The
only person who could have known the facts is the
plaintiff and the defendant. The mother and the child
have a special relationship. It is one of love, respect and
compassion. Reckless and unsubstantiated allegation
about the mother-in-law is bound to cause mental
cruelty to the appellants. This conduct of the wife is
grave enough to arrive at a finding of cruelty. The
defendant had enough opportunity to deny such
allegation in the written statement. The respondent for
reasons best known to her did not contest the suit. The
allegation in the plaint has remained uncontroverted.
The testimony of the appellant has remained unshaken.
The learned Counsel for the respondent submits
that the allegation made against the wife is not proved.
The learned Counsel adopts the view expressed by the
learned Trial Court that in absence of any corroborative
evidence, the allegation of cruelty is not proved.
However, we disagree with such submission for the
reasons we have indicated above in this order.
Furthermore, we find that the marriage was never
consummated. The non-consummation of marriage
along with cruelty, to the extent we have indicated
above, is sufficient to decree the suit in favour of the
appellant/husband.
The appeal succeeds.
The impugned order is set aside.
The marriage between the parties is hereby
dissolved on and from 31st October, 2022.
The appeal being FA 111 of 2021 stands disposed
of.
The department is directed to draw up the decree as
expeditiously as possible.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on usual
undertaking.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
