Case Comment on Samar Ghosh V. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 51
Symbiosis Law School, Pune, India.
Volume III, Issue V, 2020
The Appellant and the Respondent, in this case, were Officials of the Indian Administrative Service (“IAS”). Both the appellant and Respondent for this situation were married on 13/12/1984 at Calcutta under Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Respondent (the spouse for this situation) was a divorced person and right now had a female youngster at the hour of her second marriage from her first marriage. The guardianship of this female kid was in the possession of the Respondent given by the District Court of Patna when the respondent has gotten a separation order against her first spouse, Mr. Debashish Gupta, who was likewise an IAS official. Both the parties in the current case had known each other since 1983. The respondent used to meet with the appealing party between November 1983 and June 1984. They in this way developed a dear fellowship which later formed into romance and along these lines into a marriage.
The respondent’s first spouse, Debashish Gupta filed a belated appeal against the pronouncement of separation procured by her from the District Court of Patna. In like manner, during the pendency of the appeal, she persuaded the Appellant to agree to the marriage quickly so the appeal of Debashish Gupta may become infructuous. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.1984. According to the litigant, not long after the marriage, the respondent asked the appellant not to interfere with her professional life. She had moreover unilaterally made a decision not to have a kid for quite a while and the appellant should not be interested in her child and he should endeavor to keep himself reserved from her very far. As shown by the appealing party, there was the inconvenience of proportioning in feeling in the field of affection, affection, future organizing, and standard human relations anyway he made a not too bad endeavor to become acclimated to the situation made by the respondent. The appealing party has affirmed that this ill-advised conduct of the respondent before long turned into a typical thing for both the parties in a matter of moments. The Appellant additionally referenced various rates where the respondent’s inappropriate conduct arrived at its pinnacle and thus likewise hurt the appealing party both intellectually and truly. Which incorporated the disregard of taking minding of everyday marriage schedules by the respondent towards the Appellant. The most significant decision is the one-sided choice of the Respondent to not tolerate any offspring of the appealing party.
In 1985 when both the parties were living in the same house alongside a worker cum-cook which was dispensed to the Appellant, the respondent claimed that the girl of the respondent may be in peril because of the cook and hence the respondent accepting these charges as premise moved to another house, subsequently from September 1985 both the parties were living independently. After several transfers of his job, the Appellant at long last got back to Calcutta in 1988 and began living with the respondent once more (as of now the mother of the respondent additionally used to live with the respondent).
The Appellant attempted to overlook all the previous agonies and attempted to begin another life any way he kept on enduring mental injury because of the respondent and her mom. The respondent at no-specific occasions used to tell the appealing party that the little girl of the respondent isn’t the Appellant’s little girl and accordingly the litigant ought not to love or care for the girl. The equivalent was likewise being incited to the little girl by the respondent and respondent’s mom, because of which the girl began keeping away from the appealing party which has made mental mischief the litigant.
As indicated by the appealing party, the worker cum-cook came to the flat on 24/08/1990 and remained there the night. The following two days were holidays. The respondent and her dad were additionally there. On observing the worker, the respondent began yelling on both the worker and the appealing party, alongside the respondent, the respondent’s dad additionally began yelling in a pre-considered idea. The Appellant was approached to leave the level by the respondent. The Appellant felt very offended and mortified and this left the level. Along these lines, again the couple began living in various pads once more. The appealing party has additionally expressed that the respondent has declined to dwell together with the Appellant and doesn’t give him the marriage joy and has made the girl of the respondent act in a terrible way to the Appellant, even after the Appellant being a decent dad. Appropriately, both the parties have been living in various houses since 27/8/1990. Following similar conduct of the respondent, the Appellant has filed a divorce order which was conceded by the Trial Court to him on 19/12/1996. The respondent however expresses that they have been living joyfully in any case, the family members of the appealing party are not content with the respondent and hence they have constrained the Appellant to file the divorce order and that the appealing party chips away at the guidelines of similar family members as it were. The division seat of the High court vide judgment dated 20/05/2003 has turned around the choice of the trial court because the Appellant couldn’t demonstrate mental mercilessness by the respondent. In this manner, the Appellant has recorded an appeal under the watchful eye of the high court by Special leave request.