FMA No. 006 of 2015. Case: Rakesh Kumar Das Vs Kakali Mazumdar. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | FMA No. 006 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ajay Kumar Mandal, Adv. and For Respondents: Krishna Rao, Adv. |
| Judges | G. C. Gupta and Mir Dara Sheko, JJ. |
| Issue | Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) |
| Judgement Date | September 28, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Mir Dara Sheko, J.
-
The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgement and decree dated 27th August, 2014 by which an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 85 of 2011 was dismissed on contest without any order as to costs. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the petitioner has come up in appeal. Briefly stated the fact and circumstances of the case are as follows:
Both the parties to the suit are residents of Port Blair. The petitioner is a government servant aged about 32 years. The respondent is a B.Sc. in Biotechnology. They were married as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 7th February, 2011. The Bohu Bhat ceremony took place on 10th February, 2011. The marriage was duly consummated.
-
The petitioner is the only son of his parents. The respondent is the only daughter of her parents. Shortly after the marriage the respondent started complaining about the behaviour of the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law. The sister-in-law is a married woman. Her husband at the relevant point of time was posted at Assam. She as such was living with her parents. During the period between 14th February, 2011 and 25th February, 2011 the respondent insisted upon looking after the business of her uncle (mother's sister's husband) carried on under the name and style of Kalapani Tours and Travels. The father-in-law was initially hesitant, but he ultimately permitted her to do so. Though it is alleged that the mother-in-law was not inclined to allow her to do so. On 20th March, 2011, she returned to her paternal house and did not come back. The defence of the respondent is confession and avoidance. She admits that she has been residing at her paternal house since 20th March, 2011, but she tried to justify her conduct by alleging ill-behaviour of the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law. Both the parties have alleged that there were attempts for reconciliation. The petitioner alleged that attempts of reconciliation failed because the respondent was not inclined to reside at her matrimonial home with the parents of her husband. Whereas the respondent has alleged that her father tried to bring about a reconciliation which failed due to obstinacy of the parents of the petitioner.
-
It is not in dispute that the respondent left Port Blair for Chennai on 16th October 2011. According to the petitioner he was not informed about such visit. Case of the respondent is that she went Chennai for her mother's treatment with the consent of the petitioner.
-
Case of the petitioner is that the respondent was treated with utmost love and affection both by the petitioner and his parents, whereas the case of the respondent is that her mother-in-law treated the former like a maidservant and pressurised her to sweep the house seven to eight times per day and would also ask her to wash all the utensils. She has also alleged that the mother-in-law did not allow her access to her wardrobe and she would not allow to close the doors of her bedroom while the couple were going to sleep.
-
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:--
Issues
1. Whether the instant...
To continue reading
Request your trial