Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1980Cal1
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This matter has been referred to a Full Bench under the provisions of Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the Appellate Side Rules by a Bench consisting of Anil K. Sen and B. C. Chakrabarti, JJ.2. On August 14, 1974 the respondent in this appeal instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 375 of 1974 (since renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 24 of 1976) in the 9th Court of the Additional District Judge at Alipore against the appellant. In the plaint a decree for judicial separation was originally claimed. Later on, the plaint was amended and a decree for divorce was asked for.3. On May 27, 1976 the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 came into force amending certain provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.4. On July 19, 1977 the trial court passed a decree for divorce.5. On September 6, 1977 the present appeal was preferred.6. Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it originally stood, was as follows:--'All decrees and orders made by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal193
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to amend the plaint under Section 39 (1) (i) and (2) of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act LXVIII of 1976) filed on behalf of the respondent. The respondent filed a petition against the appellant for judicial separation under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Against that decree the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. During the pendency of the appeal the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 came into force on the 27th May, 1976. Several changes have been introduced in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 by the said Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act enumerates the grounds on which a decree for judicial separation could be passed. By Section 4 of the amending Act, Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act as it originally stood, has been changed entirely by a new Sub-section (1). The amended S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1997Cal134
ORDERGitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Murshida-bad in Matrimonial Suit No.67 of 1982 by which the learned trial court dismissed the matrimonial suit which was filed by the appellant husband against the respondent wife praying for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. Admittedly the parties were married according to Hindu rites on the 6th Falgun 1385 B.S. corresponding to Feb. 1979. Admittedly a daughter was born to the parties. The husband prayed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The case of the appellant husband is that the respondent wife always used to quarrel with the husband and his parents without any just reason and she also used to insist upon the petitioner tolive separately from his family which the petitioner did not agree. It is the contention of the husband that on 12th May, 1980 the wife left the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1980Cal370,(1980)2CompLJ82(Cal),84CWN716
B.N. Maitra, J.1. Petitioner has asked for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery and alternatively for judicial separation on account of her cruelty. His allegation is that in the middle of May, 1959, he was married to Sulekha, respondent No. 1, according to Hindu rites. Since then they have been residing at Bangaon. He is a professor of Dina Bandhu Maha Vidyalaya College of that place. From the beginning she had no liking for him. During the last four years the relations between the two became strained. She often used to go out of the house with co-respondent No. 2, Biswanath. On the 13th September, 1970, at about 10 p. m., he went to his house, opened the closed door for it was unbolted from within and found that Sulekha was in a compromising position with Biswanath. At his sight Sulekha became very angry and gave orders to Biswanath to do away with him. Biswanath picked up the bolt of the door and struck him on the head with it. He suffered grievous hurt, informed the police ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)3CALLT230(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. The opposite party-husband instituted a matrimonial suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on June 11, 1997 as per Hindu rights and customs.2. In the wedlock a male child has been born and the child is now aged about four years. The male child is in the custody of the mother.3. The wife-petitioner in the said suit filed an application under Section 24 of the said Act of 1995 claiming alimony pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. The learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Asansol. District: Burdwan allowed the said application in part and directed the opposite party-husband to pay Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only to the petitioner-wife towards alimony pendente lite for herself and the minor son with effect from the date of filing of the said application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned judge assessed the arrears of maintenance at Rs. 90...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two applications were heard analogously as common questions of laws are involved herein. These two applications have been filed by the parties to two different matrimonial appeals pending in this Court thereby praying for granting divorce on mutual consent.2. The question that primarily arises for determination in these applications is whether in a pending appeal against the dismissal of a suit for divorce on the grounds specified in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the parties to such proceedings, instead of filing a fresh application under Section 13B of the Act before the learned District Court, can file such an application and insist on passing a decree for divorce on mutual consent without waiting for six months as provided in Section 13B(2) of the Act.3. Mr. Tandon and Mr. Basu, the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties have made separate submissions in support of the applications contending...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)2CALLT43(HC),2008(2)CHN303,II(2008)DMC582
Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the joint petitioners.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order, being Order No. 3 dated 7th January, 2008 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Matrimonial Suit No. 1969 of 2007.3. By the order impugned, the learned court below dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the joint petitioners herein for preponing the date of hearing of the mutual consent divorce petition, filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, primarily on two grounds, namely:(a) At the time of hearing of the interlocutory application, the petitioners had not filed even a scrap of paper in order to support their contention of foreign assignment, and(b) Mutual consent petition for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 could not be preponed, since statutory waiting period of six months had not yet elapsed.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, A.C.J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Arambagh, District-Hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No. 72 of 2005, thereby dismissing the proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights.2. Being dissatisfied, the husband has come up with the present appeal.3. There is no dispute that the parties were married on 5th July, 1987 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and in the said wedlock, two children were born. The husband, at present, is employed in Border Security Force and is posted at Amritsar in the State of Punjab.4. After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife in the joint family of the husband, but in view of disputes between the wife and her in-laws, in absence of the husband, the wife left the said joint family of her husband and went back to her f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)2CALLT567(HC)
Mahammad Habeeb Shams Ansari, J.1. Instant appeal is field by defendant-wife aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated September 21, 2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Howrah in Matrimonial Suit No. 37 of 1994. Thereby the suit for divorce filed on the ground of cruelty by the husband was decreed.2. A perusal of the judgment under appeal would show that the petition under Section 13 was filed by the husband praying for a decree of divorce under Section 13 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Learned trial Court found that the ground of desertion is not established and with regard to the ground of cruelty it was noticed that the same was founded on the ground that the wife left the matrimonial home at regular intervals and used to come back after 15/20 days and that she refused cohabitation with the husband and that finally on November 13, 1993 she left the matrimonial home with bag and baggage without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner and against the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT321(HC)
G.C. De, J.1. By this application, the applicant-husband has prayed for review of the judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of this Court in FAT No. 002 of 2003. The principle ground taken in this application, is that the real important issue in the case involved has not been decided by the Court and that the Court came to a finding on an issue which was not framed.2. The husband-applicant filed a suit for divorce against the respondent-wife under section 13((1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 mainly on the ground of discretion and cruelty. The marriage took place on 12.12.1995 according to the Hindu rites and customs and a male child was born in the wedlock. The applicant-husband is a medical officer and the respondent is a school mistress at Port Blair. The specific allegations of the husband is that from the very beginning, the respondent showed her disliking to live in the matrimonial home with the parents-in-law and was persistently creating pressure upon t...
Tag this Judgment!