HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bijayesh Mukherji, Salil Kumar Datta
BEJOY DAW - Appellant
Versus
ALOKA DAW - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 949 Of 1966
Decided On : FEBRUARY 3, 1969
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 9 - COURT'S DISCRETION - MENTAL CRUELTY - REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM SOCIETY - FALSE AND BASELESS ALLEGATIONS - COURT'S SATISFACTION ABOUT TRUTH OF STATEMENTS IN PETITION - LEGAL IMPEDIMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The husband, Bejoy, filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Aloka, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The parties were married in 1957 and had a child in 1958. However, their relationship deteriorated due to Bejoy's abusive and insulting letters to Aloka, in which he made false and baseless allegations against her character and questioned the paternity of their child. Aloka left the matrimonial home in May 1958 and refused to return despite Bejoy's attempts at reconciliation. Bejoy then filed a suit for judicial separation in 1961, which he later withdrew in 1962. He subsequently wrote more letters to Aloka, expressing his desire for her to return, but she refused, citing the allegations he had made against her. Bejoy then filed the present petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 1962.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Bejoy's letters to Aloka were extremely abusive and insulting, and that the allegations he made against her were false and baseless. The court also found that Aloka had a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from Bejoy's society, given the mental cruelty he had inflicted upon her. Furthermore, the court was not satisfied with the truth of Bejoy's statements in his petition, as he had suppressed the fact that he had made false allegations against Aloka in his previous letters. The court held that Bejoy had failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that he was not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights.
Issues: 1. Whether Aloka had a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from Bejoy's society. 2. Whether Bejoy had made false and baseless allegations against Aloka. 3. Whether the court was satisfied with the truth of Bejoy's statements in his petition. 4. Whether Bejoy had satisfied the requirements of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Aloka had a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from Bejoy's society, given the mental cruelty he had inflicted upon her through his abusive and insulting letters. The court also found that Bejoy had made false and baseless allegations against Aloka, and that he had suppressed this fact in his petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The court was not satisfied with the truth of Bejoy's statements in his petition, and held that he had failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, the court dismissed Bejoy's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Bejoy's appeal and upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss his petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The court also awarded costs to Aloka, except for the amounts already paid as litigation costs.
( 1 ) THE history of this matrimonial litigation by the husband Bejoy Daw, now appellant, against his wife Aloka Daw, now respondent, for restitution of conjugal rights divides itself into four stages-I. August 14, 1957, when Bejoy aged 30 or thereabouts and Aloka aged 20 or thereabouts, Hindus both, were married according to Hindu rites, to May 1s58, when Bejoy reached Aloka from the matrimonial home to her mother's place at 92-A Bhupendra Bose Avenue, Calcutta, for her impending confinement. II. February 3, 1958, from when Bejoy started inflicting upon Aloka vitriolic letters, to November 26, 1958, when Bejoy sent his younger brother with a chit to Aloka, making a peremptory demand for return, through the bearer of the chit, of all ornaments and articles given her by all his people, threatening her with dire consequences in case of non-compliance with such ultimatum, and carrying out the threat by having swooped down upon his wife's place an act which led to a rough and-tumble or maramari, as both Bejoy and Aloka, in the midst of their so many differences, put it in their evidence. During this period, to be precise, on or about July 20, 1958, Aloka was delivered of a female child,iii. August 8, 1860, from when Bcjoy started writing one letter after another, mostly to Aloka, one to her eldest brother, and one to her mother, pleading for Aloka's return to the matrimonial home, with the precaution of sending such letters by registered post with acknowledgment due and keeping a carbon copy of each to March 28, 1962, when Bejoy's matrimonial suit No. 2 of 1961 against Aloka instituted on January 3, 1961, for judicial separation, was permitted to be withdrawn, with costs; Aloka pressed for and the judge granted. IV. April 1, 1962, from when Bejoy took to writing letters again, mostly to Aloka and one to her brother Mrityunjoy Datta, C/o. Reliance Stores (Pvt.) Ltd. , 92-A Bhupendra Bose Avenue, Calcutta, with the same type of double precaution: (i) by registered post with acknowledgment due and (ii) by keeping a carbon copy of each, the refrain of which letters is that Aloka, whose return to the matrimonial home is longed for, should come back soon enough, to September 4. 1962, when the present cause, matrimonial suit No. 73 of 1902, for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted--a cause which has been dismissed and out of which the appeal, we are now adjudicating, has arisen,
( 2 ) THE first stage presents no problem. The correspondence that is seen in and about this period is quite the normal exchange of letters to and from between Bejoy and Aloka, the newly married couple. Here is a resume of such letters, interspersed with comments, resting on evidence:
( 3 ) [after giving the resume of the letters, their Lordships proceeded]. Such contemporaneous letters speak for themselves. Leaving aside periodic small rubs -- and a married life which is free from any such rub must be rare indeed -- what we see is a happy couple, one pining for the other. So, up to the end of December 1957, there happened little to break the home, no matter what the mutual recriminations of Bejoy and Aloka have been in the prior litigation --matrimonial suit No. 2 of 1961--or here. Taking our stand on this, after we had had an exhaustive opening from Mr. Bankim Dutt, appearing for Bejoy, we proceeded to do our duty, in terms of Section 23, Sub-section (2), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955, to bring about a reconciliation between Bejoy and Aloka, in the fond hope that they would go back to those happy days of August-December 1957 and start their life over again from there, completely blotting out from their mind all that had happened meanwhile, irrespective of the right or wrong of either. We, therefore, invited them to our chamber, putting aside their counsel, as indeed counsel themselves wanted us to do, and pleaded with Bejoy and Aloka to give their married life a trial at the least for a month, to start with. But our plead
Referred to : Lachman Utamchand Kirpalini v. Meena Alias Mota
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.