IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
F.A 135 of 2014
Suchitra Kumar Singha Roy
Smt. Arpita Singha Roy
Date of Judgement
20 March, 2020
Hon'ble Samapti Chatterjee & Justice Manojit Mandal
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner/husband was married to the respondent/wife on 4th day of February, 2002, according to Hindu Rites and Customs and after marriage they started to live together as husband and wife in the house of the petitioner/husband. After 2-3 years of marriage, respondent/wife being instigated by the inmates of her parent’s house, started to misbehave with and abuse him and his parents and with his elder brother and sister-in-law. The further case of the petitioner/husband is that wife/respondent did not use to do any domestic work and as and when petitioner/husband would protest it, she used to raise hue and cry and lastly since 10th February, 2004, his parents started living in separate house and his brother also started living in Memari in a rented house along with his wife. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that respondent/wife was quarrelsome lady and she used to pick up quarrel on various issues and she used to subject him with various sorts of mental and physical cruelty as the respondent/wife was an active member of Mahila Samity. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that respondent/wife would not spare time to him and his son and on 28th April, 2007, following a dispute regarding admission of his son in the village school, she assaulted him with a sickle and lastly petitioner/husband was forced to file a suit for a decree of judicial separation, which was registered as MAT Suit No. 125 of 2007 and which was subsequently compromised on 12th June, 2007. Thereafter, they lived peacefully for some days. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that to prevent birth of further issue, they used to use contraceptive pills but since the respondent/wife had forgotten to use the same, she was conceived again and on 17th June, 2007, the respondent/wife got aborted in one Nursing Home out of her own volition and even going against the intention of him. It is the further case of the petitioner/husband that on 21st June, 2007, when the petitioner/husband got back at home after having bath in a nearby pond, the respondent/wife did not allow him to enter into the room and kept him standing with wet wearing apparels for at least 1½ hours and in spite of being requested on numerous times, respondent/wife did not open the door and hence petitioner/husband was forced to take shelter in another house, where his parents used to reside and on the very same day in the evening when he had been to the former house, he was abused and was not allowed to stay in that house. Thereafter, on 23rd June, 2007, the respondent/wife lodged a false complaint against him, his parents, his brother and sisters-in-law and treating the compliant as FIR being No. 152, one case under Sections 498A, 406 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code was started against them. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that respondent/wife had been inflicting tortures upon them since long back. On 21st June, 2008, he and his parents were assaulted at the hands of the respondent/wife and he and his mother were kept under lock and key for at least 7 hours. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that since 21st June, 2007, he did not resume conjugal life with the respondent/wife and there is possibility of his being murdered at her hand at any point of time. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that criminal case arising out of the said FIR being Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2008 was disposed of on 18th March, 2009 and all of them were acquitted from this case. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that he never condones such cruel behavior of the respondent/wife and there is no possibility of reunion. So, the petitioner/husband prayed for dissolution of marriage in the matrimonial proceeding.
- Whether they used to treat her like a maid servant and her husband did not agree to provide her essential needs and as and when she would demand of such essentials, her husband and his family members would ask her to bring the essentials from her parent’s house?
- Whether the petitioner/husband falsely claimed herself as a member of political party although in reality, respondent/wife is not the same?
Arguments from the Petitioner:
1. When the petitioner/husband got back home after having bath in a nearby pond, the respondent/wife did not allow him to enter into the room and kept him standing with wet wearing apparels for at least 1½ hours and in spite of being requested on numerous times, respondent/wife did not open the door and hence petitioner/husband was forced to take shelter in another house, where his parents used to reside and on the very same day in the evening when he had been to the former house, he was abused and was not allowed to stay in that house.
Arguments from the Respondent:
1. The said matrimonial proceeding by filing written statement contending, inter alia, that the allegations leveled against her were not at all true.
2. The petitioner/husband and inmates of his family started inflicting mental torture upon her on various false pretexts and they started finding faults with her parents.
3. The financial condition of her parents was not good, it was not possible for them to fulfill all sorts of demands of the petitioner/husband and his family.
The cases cited by Mr. Srijib Chakraborty are distinguishable and the decisions cited by Mr. Chakraborty are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as those judgments deals with cruelty in general and not with cruelty vis-à-vis criminal proceeding. From the materials on record, it appears that from the inception, the wife was rude and cruel not only to the husband but to his parents. The wife continued to use quarrel with the husband which was injurious for his health. The wife changed her attitude at the time of filing solenama application in the Matrimonial Suit No. 125 of 2007. After disposal of the said suit, she has again started abusing the husband and his parents. She was arrogant. There was intervention by the local Panchayat. In presence of the local Panchayat, the wife gave a written undertaking that she would amend her ways. But there was no change in the mind of the wife.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge are set aside. The Matrimonial Suit is decreed on contest. The marriage tie between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce.
The appeal is, thus, allowed.
Edited by Sree Ramya
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje