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.
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.
