Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad, JJ.
Sutapa Chakraborty – Appellant
versus
Gautam Chakraborty – Respondent
F.A.T. 525 of 2019
Decided on 7.10.2024

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mrs. Kakali Samajpathy, Mrs. Sangita Jangra and Mr. Subhranil Roy, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mondal, Mr. Abhirup Halder and Mr. Anirban Saha Ray, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Cruelty and desertion by wife cannot be assumed only on the basis of some photographs shown by husband.

Headnote:
Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27—Divorce—Cruelty and desertion by wife—Photographs which were taken as evidence on record showed that petitioner and appellant were touring different tourist spots—That would only go to suggest that there was cordial relationship between petitioner and present appellant—Such photographs cannot lead to conclusion that petitioner was being subjected to cruelty—Petitioner nowhere in his divorce petition has made allegation or raised issue that any cruelty has been caused by allegations of illicit relation with another lady—It was required by Court to rely upon the evidence emerging in course of instant civil proceedings for divorce with respect to allegations made by appellant regarding her ‘Streedhan’ being retained by petitioner and his family members—Finding that series of acts of cruelty are made out is clearly unsustainable on the basis of case of parties and evidence adduced at trial—There is consistent stand of appellant (wife) that she has all intentions of continuing her conjugal relationship with petitioner—Judgment and decree of divorce passed by Additional District Judge set aside.(Paras 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24)
Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Madhuresh Prasad, J.—The husband (respondent) had approached the Court seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The same has been allowed. The present appeal is by the defendant wife assailing the Judgment and Decree passed in M.A.T Suit No. 72 of 2013 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act whereby and whereunder the marriage solemnized between the appellant, with the respondent on 19.04.2006 was ordered to be dissolved.

2. The case of the plaintiff respondent at the trial was that the marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2006. Prior to the marriage being solemnized the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff and respondent were known to each other as they were residing in the same village. The plaintiff claims that the respondent allured the petitioner into marriage by presenting herself to be suffering and in a miserable condition, requiring support. She invoked the sympathy of the petitioner.

3. As per the plaint, just two days after the marriage was solemnized, the defendant appellant started intimidating the plaintiff by threatening him with implication in proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. by taking help of her Advocate boyfriend. When the petitioner went to his in-laws along with the respondent on the occasion of ‘Asthamangala’, the respondent’s father was found to be ill. The petitioner claims to have arranged for his treatment and requested the respondent to attend to his illness from her matrimonial home situated near to the house of the respondent. The respondent did not pay heed to such request, and on her own started staying in her father’s house.

4. During this period, which was immediately after the marriage, the petitioner’s relatives and acquaintances came to meet with the respondent but could not meet her because she was not residing in her matrimonial home. This prompted the relatives and acquaintances to make certain disparaging remarks upon the petitioner’s family. The act of abandoning the conjugal life just couple of days after the marriage was solemnized, and the consequence of her staying at her father’s house, inviting such remarks from the relatives and acquaintances has been alleged to constitute cruelty. The plaintiff/ husband has, further, stated that the respondent’s behavior towards him was very cruel. She used cheap, filthy and caustic language. Her relatives (mother, maternal uncle and brother) would also often come to the house of the petitioner threatening him and his family with dire consequences. Subsequently, they started pressurizing him to leave his joint family and live as ‘ghar jamai’ at the respondent’s father’s home. There is also an allegation that Rs. 2 lakhs was demanded from the petitioner for facilitating a business venture of respondent’s brother.

5. The plaintiff goes on to allege that the respondent had many soul mates and was leading an immoral life. On objections being raised, she would become furious, used filthy language and sometimes also beat the petitioner with stick, shoes, brooms etc. It is alleged that even on a trivial issue the respondent would sometimes slap the petitioner in front of everyone and that she would often deprive the petitioner of conjugal intercourse; and often during intercourse she would cause bodily injury upon the petitioner husband.

6. Finally, it is alleged that on 14.03.2010 after receiving a telephonic call regarding her father’s illness she went to her father’s house, never to return. The expenses over treatment of her father was being incurred by the petitioner and on 15.06.2010, he lodged a station diary entry at the Noapara Police Station bearing Noapara P.S. being GDE No. 1678 in respect of the cruelty being meted out to him. He also tried counselling for which he took the help of a local counselor Smt. Sabita Chakraborty.

7. On 02.09.2010, however, the respondent took all her belongings including her bedding, clothing, furniture, utensils, book etc. Thereafter, she lodged a case bearing Barrackpo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document