Q: Explain the citation of Deb Narayan V/s Anushree Halder on 26 August 2003 in detail ?

Ans: During a Case in Supreme Court of Deb Narayan V/s Anushree Halder on 26 August 2003, it was held that no maintenance to wife who is errant and left matrimonial home on her own without any justifiable reason. It was held that the appellant herein is the husband of the respondent. He has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dated 26.11.2001 whereby the High Court while allowing the Revision Application preferred by the respondent directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rupees fifteen hundred per month by way of maintenance to the respondent and also to pay costs of rupees two thousand. While doing so,  it set aside the order of the lower court dated 15.12.2000 passed on the application filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr. P.C., in so far as the lower court refused the prayer of the wife for grant of maintenance to her. The lower court, however, had directed the husband to pay a sum of rupees fifteen hundred per month for the maintenance of his son who was residing with the respondent. The Supreme Court held after pursuing evidence on record with a view to ascertain whether for any other reason the wife was ill treated by the husband. The high court had found from the evidence on record that the behaviour of the husband has been throughout normal. It is admitted by the couple that they many times went during vacations to visit different places. On some occasions they were even accompanied by the relatives of the wife. The husband permitted the wife to continue her studies even after her marriage and that is how she secured her B.A. degree after marriage. He also taken an agency of the UTI to keep her busy and also opened a joint account in the bank which she could use. All these facts tell that for many years after their marriage they enjoyed normal relationship. In fact, there is evidence to show that the husband used to praise his wife in the presence of others by complimenting her and giving her credit for the good performance of their son in his studies. This even the wife had admitted in the course of her examination. Apart from these, we find it difficult to believe that if the husband started torturing the respondent within 15 days of the marriage, the respondent would not have reported this matter at least to her mother. As per her mother, she came to know about her cruelty by  her husband 5 to 6 years after marriage. As per wife in her complaint, she had mentioned about such happenings to her mother about 8 years after her marriage. While there is reference to reports lodged by the wife to the police regarding torture by the husband, not one such report has been submitted on record which may have been lodged before the wife left her husband. Even relevant particulars are not disclosed. The only police report submitted on record is one registered after the respondent left her husband home. We do not put much importance to this report. There is no relevant document in the form of letters which may have been written by the wife to her friends or relatives mentioning about her being subjected to ill-treatment or harassment by the appellant. The wife being an educated lady, it is difficult to believe that she would not have written letters to her friends and relatives during the twelve years that she lived with the husband as couple. Apart from her mother, the wife has produced no evidence of prove that she was tortured and harassed by her husband. The lower court also noticed that though they lived at different places around Calcutta during the period of twelve years after their marriage, not one witness was examined by the respondent to prove that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty. On the other hand, some witnesses have been examined by the husband to prove that they lived a normal life and there was no question of the wife being tortured by the husband for any reason. Even the other facts which we have found support the case of the husband that he had not treated his wife with cruelty for any reason. Advocate for the respondent laid great emphasis on the observation of the Magistrate that the appellant being a bank employee leaving for his work in the morning and returning late in the evening hardly had any time to harass her wife. The Supreme Court therefore holds that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the lower court. Supreme Court had reached this conclusion after appreciating the evidence on record since there is no discussion of the evidence in the judgment of the High Court. Advocate for the wife posed before us a question as a part of his submission as to why her wife should leave her husband’s home without any cause. In cases where there is a dispute between couple it is very difficult to find the true reason for the dispute. After separation when the relationship turns bad, all sorts of allegations and counter allegations are made against each other. Evidence of Specific nature therefore plays an important role in such cases as it may reveal the thinking and attitude of the couples towards each other at the relevant time. Such evidence is usually found in the form of letters written by the couples to each other or to their friends and relatives or recorded in any other document of specific nature. If really the wife was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in the manner alleged by her, the Supreme Court had no doubt that she would have written about such treatment to her friends and relatives with whom she may have discuss. The complaints filed by her to the police may have thrown some light on this aspect of the matter. Such type of evidence was completely absent in the case. It appears to us that the couples lived happily for many years after the marriage till about the year 1996, where after there was some misunderstanding which ultimately resulted in their separation. Why this happened, it is difficult to fathom, but the evidence on record does not convince us that the respondent was subjected to torture and harassment by the appellant, and certainly not for the reasons alleged by her. The court must base its findings on the evidence produced before it by the couples. The enquiry by the Court is restricted to the evidence on record and the case pleaded by the parties. It is not allowed to the Court to make out a third case not pleaded by the couples only to answer the query such as the one posed to us. In the result the supreme court allowed the appeal of the husband and the order of the High Court is set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

x