Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Baisakhi Dutta vs Sg Chandan Dutta on 31 October, 2022
FA 90 of 2021
Item-31.
31-10-2022
Baisakhi Dutta
Versus
sg Chandan Dutta
Ct. 8
Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Saha, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Malyasree Maity, Adv.
Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharjee, Adv.
...for the respondent
The husband filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the
ground of cruelty. The said suit was decreed on contest.
Briefly stated, the marriage between the parties was
solemnised on 25th April, 2012. The parties initially stayed in the
matrimonial house. The plaintiff alleged that the respondent/wife
was quarrelsome and she did not want to stay with her in-laws.
Considering the nature of mental and physical torture inflicted
upon the plaintiff and on the advice of the parents of the plaintiff,
the plaintiff left her matrimonial house on 25th November, 2012
and the parties shifted to a rented accommodation. It is alleged
that the husband was subjected to mental and physical torture even
at the rented accommodation. The husband being unable to bear
such torture, was forced to leave the rented accommodation in or
about 11th August, 2013 and since then the parties are living
separately.
The wife filed a written statement denying the allegations. It
was alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty
by the plaintiff and her in-laws for demand of dowry at the
matrimonial house. It was alleged that she was compelled to leave
the matrimonial house. She tried her best to adjust with the
petitioner and to live peacefully. However, the appellant left the
rented premises without any just cause or excuse.
During trial, it transpired that proceedings under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure were initiated one year after receipt of the
notice of the matrimonial suit. In the proceeding the plaintiff has
disclosed the complaints made by him in between 3 rd June, 2013
and 11th August, 2013 with the local police station disclosing the
mental and physical torture to which he was subjected to and he
was apprehensive of his body and health. Due to such unrest at
home and quarrelsome attitude of the wife, his work was affected
as he was a teacher in a Junior High School. At the time of
marriage the plaintiff was a teacher in the high school but later on
he joined the junior high school as teacher. The wife admitted that
she did not disclose in petition under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure that a proceeding was initiated under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code against the plaintiff and the other
members of the matrimonial home.
The learned Trial Judge in deciding the suit in favour of the
appellant has taken into consideration the evidence of PW-1 along
with the evidence of neighbours and the mother of the appellant
with regard to the degree of mental and physical torture received
by the plaintiff at his parents' house and the subsequent facts of
cruelty as borne out from the several complaints lodged with the
local police station before the husband left the rented
accommodation. The Trial Judge has also taken into consideration
the fact that the respondent and her father admitted that she filed a
criminal case under section 498A Indian Penal Code against the
petitioner and his family members and under section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. against the petitioner only after receiving the notice of the
matrimonial suit. The father of the respondent used to stay with
the daughter and only after the plaintiff left the rented
accommodation, they decided to leave the rented accommodation
and she returned to her parents' house. The wife alleged that she
was treated with cruelty by her husband and other inmates of the
matrimonial house but curiously she did not lodge any complaint
either before 25th November, 2012 or thereafter. The reason for
the plaintiff to leave matrimonial home is clearly attributable to
the unhealthy atmosphere created by the appellant/respondent at
her matrimonial house.
No son could easily leave his parents unless there are
compelling reasons. The case is required to be decided on the
preponderance of probabilities. The appellant was found to be of
suspicious nature and character. Affection of the petitioner
towards the children and wife of his younger brother was viewed
with suspicion.
Human relations are delicate and needs to be respected.
Each and every relation has separate meaning and needs to be
defined in its proper perspective. The allegation of the wife of
torture either physical or mental could not be proved at the trial.
There was no evidence on record which would show that the wife
was even inflicted with any torture mental or physical. There is a
complete lack of understanding, faith and respect between the
parties. The conduct of the wife would show that it is not possible
for the husband to lead a healthy marital life with the appellant.
Initiation of criminal proceeding almost after one year from the
date of notice of matrimonial suit is also a relevant factor in
deciding the evidence of the wife and the claim of the plaintiff.
It is in the conspectus of the aforesaid facts, we concur with
the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. From the
evidence adduced by the parties it can be reasonably inferred that
the allegation made by the plaintiff cannot be disbelieved.
On such consideration, we did not find any reason to
interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Additional District Judge.
The appeal fails. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
