Kumar Sankar Chakraborty vs Juthika Chakraborty

Kolkata High Court   

Kumar Sankar Chakraborty vs Juthika Chakraborty on 6/2/1996

JUDGMENT

  

Surya Kumar Tiwari, J.

   1. This petition has been filed against the order passed by 6th    Judicial Magistrate. Alipore in Misc. Case No. 518 of 1988.

   2. The opposite party is the wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was    solemnised in the year 1982 and a daughter Sudeshna was born out of    this wedlock. The opposite party alleged that the petitioner    ill-treated her and neglected to maintain her ever-since 1984. The    petitioner is posted at Rourkella and the climate of Rourkella does not    suit the opposite party. She, therefore claims maintenance.

   3. The petitioner denied that he neglected and ill-treated the opposite    party. He has stated that the petitioner has left her matrimonial home    on her own without any rhyme or reason.

   4. The learned Magistrate found that the petitioner had failed to    maintain his wife. Therefore he awarded Rs. 400/- to the opposite party    by way of maintenance. Hence this revisional petition.

   5. The opposite party has stated in her statement that she became sick    in Rourkella and came down to Calcutta for treatment but the petitioner    did not come to take her back to Rourkella nor made any arrangements    for her treatment. The opposite party has stated in her    cross-examination that she did not live at Rourkella and that she was    not willing to live with opposite party apprehending danger to her    life. She further emphatically stated that she was not willing to    reside with the petitioner even if he gives undertaking for secutity of    her life. She stated that the petitioner used to torture her. She also    stated that she wants to live separately with her daughter.

READ  Divorce on ground of unsoundness of mind of other spouse

   6. PW 2 Bimal Goswami is the brother of opposite party. He has not    alleged that the opposite party ever complained of cruelty. He only    says that the petitioner never came to see the petitioner except once.
   He admits in his cross-examination that he has no objection if the    petitioner takes the opposite party with her to Rourkella. He denies    that the petitioner was un-willing to go to Rourkella. He also states    that he tried his level best to send the petitioner to Rourkella.

   7. PW 3 Dipendra Narayan Goswami is the uncle of the opposite party. He    admits that he requested the opposite party to live with the petitioner    at Rourkella. He only complains that the petitioner did not send any    money at the time when the opposite party was confined in the nursing    home. He also admits that he had never seen any ill-treatment of the    opposite party nor was he told about any such incindent.

   8. Even if the petitioner fails to pay the treatment charges to his    brother-in- law, then the brother-in-law can claim that amount from the    petitioner. The questioning of neglect does not arise. It appears that    the opposite party does not want to live in Calcutta and reside at    Rourkella with her husband. She is, therefore, living in Calcutta on    her own without any just cause. I, therefore, find that the learned    Magistrate was not justified in awarding maintenance to the opposite    party.

   9. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the order allowing payment    of maintenance to wife is hereby set aside.

READ  Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *