2008 Supreme(Cal) 308
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA & RUDRENDRA NATH BANERJEE
Tamal Kumar Banerjee
Versus
Chaitali Banerjee
Decided On : 18-03-2008
For the Appearing Parties:Goutam Chakraborty, J.N. Manna, Advocates.
RUDRENDRA NATH BANERJEE, J.
(1). THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of divorce passed in MAT Suit No. 47 of 2001 of the Family Court Calcutta on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the appellant/husband.
(2). THE respondent/ wifes case in the Court below can be summed up as follows: The petitioner/wife, Chaitali Banerjee got married with the appellant, Dr. Tamal Kumar Banerjee, according to Hindu rites and customs on August 10, 1990, the marriage having taken place at a rental house at 41/4a Bagbazar street, Kolkata - 3 and after the marriage the said husband and wife began to live at 28/6, Pottery Road, Kolkata.
(3). THE appellant/husband had been treating the wife with cruelty since the solemnization of marriage. He also demanded dowries and forced the wife to procure the items like revolving chair and table of godrej make and other wearing apparels from her fathers place. On May 7, 1992 the husband abused and beat the respondent/wife and confined her in a locked room without food and water and ultimately, on May 13, 1992 the wife was driven out of her matrimonial home at 28g Pottery Road, Kolkata. In the year 1992, the husband filed the MAT suit No. 126 of 1992 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for divorce. Thereafter, on the husbands prayer before this High Court, the proceeding was transferred to this High Court under clause 13 of the Letters Patent 1865 and the suit was registered as Extraordinary Suit No. 21 of 1993 and ultimately, the parties entered into a settlement and the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated July 11, 1994. One of the terms of settlement was that the parties would reside together at a place different from the place of the in-laws of the wife. Then, the parties began to live at 49, Shyamnagar Road, P. S. Dum Dum, Calcutta.
(4). BUT the appellant/husband deliberately and wilfully abandoned the wife with the child in her womb and the wife began to stay at her matrimonial home at 49 Shyamnagar Road. On December 13, 1995 a male child was born in the wedlock, but the husband did not make any contact with her and the child. Thus, the husband having deserted the wife for a continuous period for not less than two years and there being no possibility of reunion for all practical purposes, the wife, as petitioner, filed the instant Mat Suit No. 47 of 2001 in the Family Court at calcutta for a decree of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
(5). AS against such case of the petitioner/wife, the husband filed the written statement contending, inter alia, that although after the solemnization of marriage they used to live as husband and wife at Pottery Road, Kolkata, in the month of October, 1992, she left her matrimonial home permanently. Thereafter, they again began to reside as husband and wife at Shyamnagar Road, Kolkata since February, 1995. But, ultimately on 25th September, 1995, the wife left such place permanently. In the meantime, the wife had already taken back all her belongings including the marriage presentations from her matrimonial home without the consent of her husband. The husband has denied the story of cruelty or misbehavior by him upon the wife, and also denied the story of desertion. He has also stated that he was not in a position to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- as demanded by the wife. He does not want to dissolve the marriage tie between him and his wife due to the child. However, out of mental agony, the husband had been seeking for mental peace and is visiting from shelter to shelter in various religious organizations like ISKON, Belur Math, Ramkrishna Ashram, Yogada. According to him, it is the wife who has deserted him. It is also his case that he has been suffering from various ailments.
(6). LEARNED Court below framed as many as five issues and also recorded the deposition of the parties as P. W. 1 and D. W. 1. During the pendency of the suit, the wife filed an application under Section 24 o