Calcutta High Court
Rajendra Kumar Jajodia vs Puja Jajodia [Nee Roy on 11 June, 2008
Author: Surinder Singh Nijjar
Bench: Surinder Singh Nijjar
APOT No.189 of 2008
GA No. 1607 of 2008
EOS No. 9 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
RAJENDRA KUMAR JAJODIA Appellant
Versus
PUJA JAJODIA [NEE ROY] Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. J. Chakraborty with Mr. O.P.Tripathi and Miss. Sabita Mukherjee, Advs.
For Respondent : Mr. S.K.Dutta with Mr. Atish Ghose, Advs. BEFORE:
The Hon'ble MR.SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, Chief Justice And The Hon'ble JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE Date : 11th June, 2008.
The Court : In this case the appellant has filed a petition for divorce claiming that the marriage between the parties had been irretrievably broken down. The relief of divorce was sought on the basis of admissions allegedly contained in the pleadings of the wife. The learned Trial Court has reproduced the relevant pleadings in the impugned judgment which are as under :
"The parties were married to each other in 1991 and since then the petitioner is treating the respondent with extreme cruelty. The petitioner has also deserted the respondent and 2 their child, Raveera. The petitioner has refused to accept the child as his own in view of the fact that she is an adoptive child. There has at such occurred irretrievable break down of marriage. Reconciliation between the parties has become impossible.
The respondent in view of the extremely bitter relationship between the parties, had agreed to divorce the petitioner on condition that the petitioner makes payment of a sum of Rs 20 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs) as permanent alimony and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) per month for maintenance of the child, Raveera. This amount shall be needed by the respondent for her upkeep and for the purpose of bringing up the child. The petitioner however refused to make payment of such money and is insisting upon divorce, without making payment of such amount, which the petitioner is not ready to accept.
If at all divorce ought to be granted, the same should be granted at the request of the respondent for reason of the cruelty meted out by the petitioner to the respondent.
... I agree that it has come to a point that it is no longer possible(for) me to co-exist with the petitioner.
... I state that I have been living apart from the petitioner for more than a year and I am happy to stay this way"
Perusing the aforesaid averments the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid cannot be said to be admissions which can be said to be unconditional, and on the basis of which a decree of divorce could be granted. We are also of the opinion that the averments made therein rather go to show that the wife is claiming that it is the husband who has treated her with extreme cruelty. He has also deserted the wife as well as 3 the child. The husband had, according to the wife, declined to accept the child as his own as she has an adopted child. It is evident that the wife has clearly stated that the marriage had been irretrievably broken down and reconciliation has become impossible. But in the same breath it has been stated by the wife that in view of the extremely bitter relationship between the parties she has agreed to grant divorce to the petitioner on condition of payment of a certain lump sum of money as well as permanent alimony for the child.
Throughout the proceedings before the Trial Court the husband did not agree to the payment of the amount nor was any amount paid to the wife. Now, at the appellate stage the husband states that he is ready to pay the amount demanded by the wife. In the meantime, the learned Single Judge has on consideration of the entire pleadings come to the conclusion that the averments made by the wife in the written statement are no admission of plaintiff's case of cruelty but are counter allegations of spiteful behaviour scornfully made against her husband and her in-laws. The learned Trial Court also noticed that the wife has tabulated graphically all the incidents of cruelty which had to be gone into by the Trial Court.
Therefore, we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs to be set aside. 4
We find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit preferably within a period of six weeks from date. Cross order for discovery within two weeks from date, inspection forthwith thereafter. The suit to appear in the peremptory list four weeks hence.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, CJ.) (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) ss.