SRI TARUN BHATTACHARJEE vs SMT RITA BHATTACHARJEE

This appeal is by the husband- Sri Tarun Bhattacharjee @ Jibesh Bhattacharjee -against the judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup(M), in Marriage F.C.(Civil) Case No. 686/2011, whereby the petition filed by him against his wife-Rita

Bhattacharjee-under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ''Act'') has been dismissed.

Facts in short are these. Appellant and Respondent were married on 02.12.2010 and they started their married life in the house of appellant.

But, appellant filed the petition seeking divorce on 03.12.2011 alleging inter alia that on the first night after marriage respondent did not sleep with

him on some pretext and she refused to cohabit with him, on the ground that she was over aged and cohabitation or bearing child was a serious

problem. It was also alleged that respondent confessed before him that she was more than 40 years of age and as such, it was not advisable for

her to cohabit. The fact of her being over aged was concealed from the appellant at the time of their marriage and it was also alleged that during

her stay in his house they cohabited only on two occasions and respondent used to go to her parental home frequently on this or that ground.

According to appellant, respondent stayed in the matrimonial home for only 41 days and ultimately left his house on 27/06/2011 from which date

she had been staying in the house of her parents. Besides, it was alleged that respondent used to treat appellant that she would commit suicide and

it came to his knowledge that she tried to commit suicide on many occasions before her marriage. Besides, she did not do any household work and

her behaviour towards appellant and his other family members was totally abnormal. Hence, appellant prayed for a decree of divorce on the

ground of cruelty.

Respondent contested the suit denying the allegations made by appellant regarding mental cruelty meted out to him as well as his family

members. She contended that after marriage, she tried to satisfy appellant and his parents by discharging her duties as a daughter-in-law. Appellant

used to reside in a joint family with his parents and respondent did her best to satisfy them. But after a few months of their marriage she noticed

that behaviour of appellant as well as his family members towards her changed completely. Appellant being a Grade-IV Government Servant was

the sole bread earner of the family and he and his family members began to demand her to bring money from her mother or her younger brother.

They began to insist her to ask her mother about her pension or her younger brother about his monthly income. As the days rolled on, the family

members of appellant started treating her as their domestic help rather than their daughter-in-law. She also alleged that her in-laws even

disconnected electricity line and water to her bathroom and toilets and so, she had no other option but to leave for her parental home with hope

that someday her inlaws and appellant would come and bring her to the matrimonial home. But none came to bring her in spite of her repeated

phone calls to appellant, who in turn said that she was an ugly, old fashioned and aged girl. She desired to stay with appellant and still desires to

live with him but appellant was reluctant to stay with her and filed the suit for divorce and hence the respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit.

The trial court disbelieved the case of appellant and dismissed his petition for divorce. According to the trial court, he could not prove the

ground of mental cruelty meted out to him by respondent.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we have reached the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be

dismissed. Although the appellant alleged that respondent did not do any household work, during cross-examination he admitted that she used to

do household works during her stay in the matrimonial home. He also admitted that he did not see any document to ascertain the age of the

respondent to support his claim of her being over aged and it is his further admission that at the time of marriage he was about 44 years of age

himself. He further admitted that he did not specifically mention about the physical and mental problem of respondent and he did not make any

mention about specific incident which took place at the behest of respondent to show that she committed cruelty to appellant. Besides, appellant

admitted that he did not state anything regarding ill treatment of respondent towards him and his family members, either in the petition or in his

affidavit. On the other hand, respondent in her evidence has categorically deposed that she used to do all her duties as a wife and a daughter-in-

law and it is, in fact, appellant and his family members who treated her with cruelty and her evidence did not shake during her cross-examination.

As such, the allegation of cruelty leveled by the appellant stands not proved and we have no hesitation but to hold that the trial court rightly passed

the impugned judgment dismissing the suit and hence does not call for our interference.

With the above directions, appeal is disposed of.