INTHEHIGHCOURTATCALCUTTA
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
APPELLATESIDE
Present:
TheHon’bleJusticeSamaptiChatterjee
And
TheHon’bleJusticeManojitMandal
F.A285of2012
SectionBasantaDas
v.
ShyamaliDas
Fortheappellant:Mr.SiddheswarChandra
FortheRespondent:Mr.M.M.Verma
Ms.NilamVerma
Heardon:21.11.2019
Judgmenton:24.12.2019
ManojitMandalJ.
Thisfirstappealisattheinstanceofhusbandinasuitfor
divorceonthegroundofdesertionandisagainstthejudgmentanddecree
dated25thNovember,2009passedbytheAdditionalDistrictJudge,Fast
Track2ndCourt,Suri,BirbhuminMatrimonialSuitNo.71of2003.
2
2.Beingdissatisfied,thehusband/plaintiffhascomeupwiththe
presentappeal.
3.TheappellantbeforeusfiledintheCourtoftheDistrictJudge,
BirbhumatSuri,asuitbeingMatrimonialSuitNo.71of2003thereby
prayingfordivorceundertheprovisionofSection13(1)oftheHindu
MarriageActandthecasemadeoutbytheappellantinthepetitionerfor
divorcemaybesummedupthus:
(a)ThepartiesweremarriedaccordingtoHinduRitesand
Customson6thDecember,1995inthehouseoftheRespondent’sfatherat
MoholunderPoliceStationPandabeswar,District-Birbhum.Thereafter,
partieslivedtogetherinthehouseoftheappellantatVillage-Jogaiunder
PoliceStationMurarai,District-Birbhum.Thesaidmarriagewasduly
consummated.Inthewedlockoftheparties,afemalechildwasborn.
(b)Theappellantisaneducatedunemployedpersonandhewent
toJhangraCollieryforsearchingajobwheretherespondent’sfatherwas
anemployeeofthecollieryandhegaveaproposalofmarriageofher
daughterwiththeappellantandassuredhimthathewillarrangeforjob
fortheappellant.TheappellantthereafterstartedtoliveatBaishaki
colonyatJhangraCollieryandfatheroftherespondenthadopenedafixed
depositpolicybydepositingRs.60,000/-(RupeesSixtyThousand)onlyin
Bankinthejointnamesofthepartiesasthefatheroftherespondent
couldnotreadilymanageanyjobfortheappellant.
3
(c)Theappellanthadnopropertytomeethisfamilyexpenses
andsomehowcollectedsomestudentsandbegantuitionworkand
maintainedtherespondentwithgreatdifficulties.
(d)Respondent’sbehaviortowardstheappellantwasnotgood
andshewasnotobedienttoherhusbandandusedtobehavewithhim
badlyandinallrespectsheusedtoquarrelwiththeappellantandabused
himinfilthylanguages.
(e)Aftermarriagetherespondentdidnotliketostayinherin
lawshouseinaremotevillageandtheappellantwascompelledtocomeat
Jhangrawheretherespondent,herfatherandbrotherbehavedverybadly
withtheappellantandeventhreatenedhimtofinishhislife.
(f)Theappellantwaslastlydrivenoutfromthequartersof
BaisakhicolonyatJhangraCollierybyhisfatherinlawandbrotherinlaw
on22.07.1997andsincethenappellantislivingseparatelyinhisnative
placeandrespondentislivingherfather’shouse.
(g)RespondentfiledaMisc.CaseunderSection125oftheCode
ofCriminalProcedureformaintenanceforherselfandherminordaughter
andanothercriminalcaseunderSection498AwithotherSectionsof
IndianPenalCode.
(h)Appellant,hisparentsandbrothertriedtopersuadeherto
leadahappyconjugallifewiththeappellantbuttherespondentdidnot
returnbackanddesertedtheappellantfromenjoymentofconjugallifefor
thelast5yearsandmorewithoutanyreasonableexcuseandthereisno
4
chanceofreunionoftherespondentwiththeappellantinfuture.Hence
thesuit.
4.Thesuitwascontestedbythewifebyfilingwrittenstatementand
therebydenyingthematerialallegationsmadeintheapplicationfor
divorceandthedefenceoftherespondentmaybesummedupthus:-
(1)Therespondentdeniedthestatementthatrespondent’s
behaviortowardstheappellantwasnotgoodandrespondentwasnot
obedienttotheappellantandusedtobehavewithhimbadlyandinall
respectsheusedtoquarrelwiththeappellantandabusedhiminfilthy
languages.
(2)Itwasdeniedthaton22.07.1997theappellantwasdrivenout
fromtheQuartersatBaishakiColonybyhisfatherinlawandbrotherin
law.
(3)Aftermarriagetherespondentwenttohermatrimonialhome
andlivedashusbandandwifewiththeappellantbuttherespondentwas
subjectedtocrueltyandwasharassedandtorturedphysicallyand
mentallybytheappellantandothermatrimonialrelativesfornon-
paymentoffurtherdemandofdowryofRs.40,000/-(RupeesForty
Thousand).
(4)Inordertofulfilltheirdemandthefatheroftherespondent
depositedRs.10,000/-(RupeesTenThousand)onlyinthejointnamesin
Bank.Beforemarriagetheappellantandhisfamilymembersdemanded
Rs.1,00,000/-(RupeesOneLakh)onlyasdowryfromthefatherofthe
5
respondentandfatheroftherespondentdepositedRs.60,000/-(Rupees
SixtyThousand)onlyinthejointnameofthecoupleintheBank.
(5)Inspiteofthattheappellantandhisfamilymembersdidnot
changetheirbehavior.
(6)Sincethedateofmarriagetheappellanthadnoloveand
affectionatalltotherespondentandappellantdidnotliketherespondent
andusedtohateher.
(7)TheappellantusedtoresideattheQuartersofJhangra
Collierywiththerespondentoutofhisownwillandrespondentnever
createdanypressureupontheappellanttodoso.
(8)Respondentbehavedwellwiththeappellantandshehasalot
ofloveandaffectionfortheappellantandshewantstoliveahappy
conjugallifewithappellant.
(9)RespondentwascompelledtofileacaseunderSection125of
CriminalProcedureCode(hereinafterreferredtoas”SectionCr.P.C.”)for
maintenanceandanothercaseunderSection498AofIndianPenalCode
(hereinafterreferredtoas”SectionI.P.C”)againsttheappellant.Inthesaid
proceedingunderSection125ofCr.P.C.,theappellantisnotpaying
interimmaintenanceregularlytotherespondent.Thesuitwas,therefore,
liabletobedismissed.
5.Atthetimeofhearingofthesuittheappellantexaminedhimselfas
PW1.HealsoexaminedShriJagannathPramanick(PW2)andAshis
6
Chakraborty(PW3)insupportoftheplaintcasewhiletherespondent
examinedherselfasDWNo.I.
6.Asindicatedearlier,thelearnedTrialJudgebythejudgmentand
decreeimpugnedinthisappealwaspleasedtodismissthesuitonthe
groundthattheappellanthadfailedtoprovetheallegationsmadeinthe
petitionfordivorce.
7.Beingdissatisfied,thehusbandhascomewiththepresentappeal.
8.Mr.SiddheswarChandra,thelearnedSeniorAdvocateappearingon
behalfoftheappellant,vehementlycontendedbeforeusthatthelearned
Courtbelowhascommittedwronganderredinlawindismissingthe
plaintiff’ssuit.HefurtherurgedthatleanedTrialCourthasfailedtohold
thatthewife/respondentdesertedhermatrimonialhouseforalongperiod
andthereisnoscopetorestorethemaritallifebetweentheparties.He
furtherurgedthatlearnedTrialJudgeerredinlawaswellasinfactin
holdingthatwifeisstillwillingtoleadconjugallifewiththeappellant
particularlywhenwifewasabsentinthedatesfixedforreconciliation
betweenthehusbandandwifeasfixedbythelearnedTrialJudge.He
furthercontendedthatthelearnedTrialJudgefailedtoconsiderthatthe
appellantwassubjectedtocrueltywhentherespondentinherapplication
underSection125ofCr.P.C.hadpleadedthatherhusbandhadkeptan
illicitrelationwithanotherladyandthatevidenceofthehusbandhavenot
beenconsideredproperly.Insupportofhisargumenthehasreliedupon
7
thedecisionsreportedin94CWN769,AIR2006(All)page7andAIR
2005SC3297.
9.Mr.M.M.Verma,learnedAdvocateappearingonbehalfofthe
respondent,has,ontheotherhand,opposedtheaforesaidcontentionof
Mr.ChandraandhassubmittedthattheleanedTrialJudgeinthefactsof
thepresentcaserightlydisbelievedthehusbandregardingtheallegationof
desertion.Hefurthersubmittedthatthehusband/appellantinhis
depositionhasnowherestatedthattherespondentdroveoutthe
appellantfromtheQuartersofBaishakiatJhangraColliery.Hefurther
submittedthatitisinevidencethatwhiletherespondentalongwithher
jamaibabuwenttothehouseoftheappellant,therespondentwas
assaultedbytheappellant.Mr.Verma,therefore,praysfordismissalof
appeal.
10.Therefore,thequestionthatarisesfordeterminationinthisappealis
whetherthelearnedTrialJudgewasjustifiedindismissingthesuitfor
divorceonthegroundthattheallegationofthehusbandthatthe
respondentdesertedhimhasnotbeenprovedbytheappellantin
accordancewithlaw.
11.Nowcomingtothepointofdesertion,thelawinthisregardmustbe
appreciatedclearly.UnderSection13(1)(ib)oftheHinduMarriageAct
(hereinafterreferredtoas”Act”)anyofthespousesafterthemarriageis
solemnizedundertheprovisionsoftheActmayprayfordissolutionofthe
marriagebydecreeofdivorceontheground,interalia,thattheotherparty
hasdesertedhimorherforacontinuousperiodofnotlessthantwoyears
8
immediatelyprecedingthepresentationofthepetition.Theword
“desertion”hasbeenexplainedinthesaidActasfollows:-
“…………..theexpressiondesertionmeansthedesertionofthe
petitionerbytheotherpartytothemarriagewithoutreasonable
causeandwithoutconsentoragainstthewishofsuchpartyand
includesthewillfulneglectofthepetitionerbytheotherpartytothe
marriage…………”.
OurHighCourthasheldinacase(SectionApurbaMohonGhoshvs.Manashi
Ghosh)reportedinAIR1989(Cal)page115thatdesertionwascomplete,
whoevermighthavegiventheinitialcause,becauseallthethreeelements
thatgenerallygotoconstitute”desertion”,namely,thefactumof
separation,theanimusdeserendi,i.e.theintentiontoliveapartandthe
animusnon-revertendi,i.e.theintentionnottoreverttothematrimonial
homewereproved.
12.Keepingtheaboveprinciplesoflawonthepassingofadecreeof
divorceonthegroundofdesertioninourminditmaynowbeseenhowfar
theTrialCourtisjustifiedindismissingthesuitagainstthe
wife/respondent.Admittedly,thepartiesweremarriedaccordingtoHindu
RitesandCustomson06.12.1995.Itisalsoadmittedthatpresent
appellantandtherespondentarelivingseparatelysincelong.Itisthe
caseofthehusbandinhispetitionunderSection13(1)ofHinduMarriage
9
ActthattheappellantwasdrivenoutfromthequartersofBaishakiColony
atJhangraCollierybyhisfatherinlawandbrotherinlawon22.07.1997
andsincethenappellantislivingseparatelyinhisnativeplaceand
respondentislivinginherfather’shouseandsincethenrespondentnever
camebacktothematrimonialhomeanddesertedtheappellantfrom
enjoymentofconjugallifeforthelast5yearsandmorewithoutany
reasonableexcuse(videParas6and7ofthepetitionunderSection13(1)
ofHinduMarriageAct).FromtheallegationsmadeinPara7thehusband
wantstheCourttopresumeorinferthataftertheappellantwasdrivenout
fromthequarterson22.07.1997hemadeattempttobringherinhis
houseforresumingthematrimonialrelationandthewifedidnotcometo
hishouseandresumematrimonialrelationwithoutanyexcuse.Thisstory
doesnotfindanyplaceintheevidenceonbehalfofthehusbandbeforethe
TrialCourt.PW1BasantaDasisthehusband.Inhisexaminationin
chiefhesaidthaton22.07.1997hewasdrivenoutfromthequartersand
thathisfatherandhisbrotherwenttobringhiswifetohishousebutshe
refusedtocome.Inhiscross-examinationhehasdeposedthathisfather
inlawmadearrangementtostayinthequartersalongwithhiswifeand
daughterandheusedtostaytherewithhisfamilyandhisfatherinlaw
andhisfamilymemberswerenotresidingthere.TheevidenceofPW1
includinghiscross-examinationrevealsthatPW1hasnowherestatedin
hisevidencethathewasdrivenoutfromthequartersbyhiswifeafter
quarrellingwithhimon22.07.1997.So,thereisnoallegationagainstthe
wife/respondent.Thefatherandbrotherofthepetitionerhavenotbeen
examinedinthecasethoughitisallegedthathisfatherandbrothertried
10
tobringhiswifetohishouse.PW2isJagannathPramanickwhoknows
boththepartiesofthissuit.Thiswitnesssaidthatheneverwentinthe
quartersoftheappellantwhereheusedtoresideandheneverwenttothe
father’shouseoftherespondentandsofarheheardfromtheappellant
thathewasdrivenoutfromthequarters.PW1nowherestatedinhis
evidencethathestatedtoPW2aboutthefactofdrivenoutofthe
appellantfromthequarters.Therefore,theevidenceofPW2onthiscount
ishearsaywhichisnotadmissibleaccordingtoSectionIndianEvidenceAct.PW1
didnotexamineanyotherwitnessonthiscount.Thisapart,PW2inhis
depositionhasdeposedthathe,theappellantandhisfatherwenttobring
therespondenttothehouseoftheappellant.Buttheappellanthas
nowherestatedinhisevidencethathewenttobringtherespondenttohis
house.Incross-examinationPW2hasalsoadmittedthatheneverwentto
thequartersand/ortothefather’shouseoftherespondent.Therefore,the
evidenceofPW1andPW2areinconsistentwithandcontradictorytoeach
other.So,theevidenceoftheappellantregardingdesertiondoesnot
inspireconfidence.
13.Now,weshouldlookintoevidenceadducedonbehalfofthewifeas
tothecircumstanceswhichcompelledhertoresideinherfather’shouse.
IthasbeensuggestedtoPW1anddeniedbyhimincross-examination
thatduetotortureinflictedtoherbytheappellantonthegroundofdowry
shewascompelledtofilecriminalcaseandmaintenancecaseagainsther
husband.InPara9ofthewrittenstatementthewifestatedthatafterthe
marriageshewassubjectedtocrueltyandtorturebothphysicallyand
11
mentallybythepetitionerandhisfamilymembersfornon-paymentof
furtherdemandofdowryofRs.40,000/-(RupeesFortyThousand)only.In
herevidencerespondentasDW1saidthatshewenttohermatrimonial
homeandwhenshearrivedthereshewasassaultedbyherhusbandand
havingnootheralternativeshewascompelledtocomebackfromthere.
Shesaidonoaththatherhusbandwentawayleavingheraloneinthe
quartersaftertortureuponher.Shefurthersaidthatherhusbandnever
lookedafterher.Shefurthersaidthatshedoesnotwantdivorceandshe
wantstostaywithherhusband.Presumablyshehasnoobjectionto
residewithherhusband.TheDW1wascross-examinedbytheappellant
atlength.Nothinghasbeenobtainedtoshakethecredenceofher
statement.Inthispositionthereisnoreasonfordisbelievingthewife’s
evidencethatshewassubjectedtocrueltyandtorturedbyherhusband
andthatassuchshewascompelledtoresideinherfather’shouse.
14.Inordertogetadecreeofdivorceonthegroundofdesertion,ithas
tobeprovedbythepetitionerthattheotherpartytothemarriagehas
desertedhisorherwithoutreasonablecauseandwithouttheconsentor
againstthewishofthepetitionerincludingwillfulneglectofthepetitioner
bytheotherpartytothemarriage.Inadditiontothefactofseparation,
theanimusdeserendiandanimusnon-revertendiithastobeprovedbythe
petitioner/husbandthatthewife,wheresheisthedesertingspouseand
doesnotprovejustcauseforherleavingapart,andtosatisfytheCourt
thatthedesertionwaswithoutjustcause.Wehavefoundinevidencethat
wifehasexpressedherwillingnessandeagernesstoreunitewithher
12
husbandandtoresumeherconjugallife.Thereisnoreasontodisbelieve
her.Inthefactsandcircumstancesoftheinstantcase,andinviewofthe
legalprinciplesasdiscussedabove,weareoftheopinionthatinthe
instantcase,itisthewife/respondentwhohasbeendesertedbythe
husband/appellant.
15.Thejudgmentreferredbytheappellantreportedin94CWN769
andAIR2006(All)Page7areofnoassistancetotheappellantas
becausethesetworulingsarerelatedtothesuitfordivorceontheground
ofcruelty.
16.TheanotherdecisionreportedinAIR2005SC3297alsoisofno
assistancetotheappellantasbecausewifewasnotpreparedtolead
conjugallifewithhusbandandhusbandattemptedingettingbackhiswife
tomatrimonialhouseinthatcase.
17.Fortheforgoingreasonsandalsointhebackgroundofthe
pleadings,weholdthatthepetitionerhasgivenafalsecolouringofhis
case.
18.Thus,takingintoaccountthelock,stockandbarrelweholdthereis
nothingtointerferewiththejudgmentanddecreepassedbythelearned
Courtbelowandaccordingly,wedismisstheappeal.Butconsideringthe
circumstances,weawardnocosts.
13
19.TheLowerCourtRecordalongwithcopyofthisjudgmentbesentto
thelearnedTrialCourtbelowatonceforinformationandtakingnecessary
action.
20.UrgentPhotostatcertifiedcopyoftheorder,ifappliedfor,begivento
thepartiesonprioritybasisontheirusualundertaking.
Iagree.
(SamaptiChatterjee,J.)(ManojitMandal,J.)
