Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

&

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

FAT No. 83 of 2022

Sri Netai Golder

Vs.

Smt. Sonali Golder

For the appellant : Mr. Satyam Mukherjee,

Ms. Sayani Ahmed,

Mr. Purnendu Shekhar Ghosh,

Mr. Saibal Rakshit, Advs.

Heard on : December 11, 2025. Judgment on : December 11, 2025.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J .:

1. It appears that by previous orders, administrative notices were

directed to be served afresh on the sole respondent. As per the office report dated August 19, 2025, no service return had yet been received by the department with regard to such

service.

However, learned counsel for the appellant rightly points out

2.

that vide order dated August 29, 2022 passed in connection with CAN 1 of 2022 in respect of the self-same appeal, it was recorded by a coordinate Bench that the report filed by the department showed that administrative notice could not be served upon the respondent as the postal envelope was returned with the endorsement “insufficient address”. It was further recorded that strangely, the earlier notice sent by the appellant to the same address was served upon the respondent, as would appear from the report filed by the postal department and disclosed in the affidavit of service filed in court on that date with regard to earlier service. Under such circumstances, the coordinate Bench recorded that it considered that the service was complete.

Hence, we find that further insistence of service of

3.

administrative notice is redundant, in view of the order dated August 29, 2022, which shows that despite service having been concluded once, the respondent was not represented at any point of time. It is, thus, evident that the respondent is deliberately avoiding service and/or appearance before this court.

Under such circumstances, the appeal is taken up for hearing

4.

ex parte.

The present appeal arises out of the dismissal of the

5.

appellant’s suit for declaration of the marriage between the parties to be a nullity under Section 12, read with Section 5, of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), alternatively, divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.

Both sides led evidence. On behalf of the

6.

plaintiff/appellant/husband, the appellant himself as well as his father adduced evidence, respectively as PW1 and PW2, whereas, on behalf of the respondent/wife, the wife deposed as DW1 and the father of the wife deposed as DW2.

The learned Trial Judge, after narrating the respective cases of

7.

the parties, dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that as per the allegation of the plaintiff/appellant, the respondent/wife was treated for her mental ailment in the Pavlov Hospital; however, it appeared from the OPD (Outdoor Patient Department) ticket of the said hospital, marked as Exhibit 1, that Thursday, on which the visit allegedly took place, was not a visiting day of the treating doctor, being one Dr. Biswajit Dey.

8. The learned Trial Judge also observed that the evidence of the husband and his father were not corroborated by the neighbours or the local people and that the female members of adjoining houses, who were present on the alleged occasions of attempted assault on the husband by the wife, were not cited as witnesses.

The learned Trial Judge went on to observe that the plaintiff

9.

had to prove his case by standing on his own leg, whereas the plaintiff/appellant had failed to do so.

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Trial

10.

Judge, although mechanically narrating all the evidence, did not advert to the specific admissions of the wife in her cross-

examination.

Learned counsel takes us through the cross-examination of

11.

the wife, particularly where she had stated that she was medically treated at the R. G. Kar Medical College & Hospital but shall not bring documents from the said hospital by filing any application in the suit. More importantly, in the lat