Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 807 (CAL)

Rajesh Burman v. Mutul Chatterjee

2007-10-15

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2007
Judgment :- (1) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the husband/petitioner and is directed against the order dated 31. 05. 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, third Court, Alipore, District-South 24Parganas in Mat. Suit No. 97 of 2006 whereby he has rejected the application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed the husband/ petitioner. (2) THE fact of the case in short is that the wife/opposite party filed the matrimonial suit praying for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The husband/petitioner appeared in the said suit and he filed written statement denying all the material allegations raised in the plaint. He has contended that the wife/opposite party suppressed all the material facts before the courts in all the proceedings. She did not disclose her income from different sources properly. Even she did not disclose her mediclaim and also the medical reimbursement with reference to an accident that happened to her on 16. 07. 2001. As the wife/opposite party had suppressed the material facts, the husband/petitioner filed an application stating interrogatories to the wife/opposite party under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The wife/opposite party filed an objection to that application for interrogatories. (3) THEN, upon consideration of the matter, the learned Additional District judge, Third Court, Alipore has observed that there was no merit in the petition under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure and he rejected the same accordingly by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order No. 98 dated 31. 05. 2007, the husband/petitioner has preferred the present revisional application. (4) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials-on-record, I find that the marriage between the parties to the case was held under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 26. 01. 2000. Then, on 02. 07. 2001, the wife/opposite party filed the Matrimonial Suit No. 942 of 2001 before the learned District Judge at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, etc. 01. 2000. Then, on 02. 07. 2001, the wife/opposite party filed the Matrimonial Suit No. 942 of 2001 before the learned District Judge at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, etc. Then the matrimonial suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Alipore for disposal and it was re-numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 97 of 2006. (5) THE wife/opposite party contended that on 16. 06. 2001 night the husband/petitioner pushed her down from the staircase and she suffered several injuries on her person. For that reason, she was admitted to a nursing home in Mumbai and subsequently she had to undergo operations at Mumbai and Chennai. So, she claimed medical reimbursement of Rs. 3,82,262. 75 paise by filing an application under Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure. The husband/petitioner filed objection against that petition and a supplementary affidavit. Thereafter, the husband/ petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interrogatories to which the wife/opposite party filed an objection. (6) THE trial Court disposed of the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for medical reimbursement granting Rs. 3,06,081/-to the wife/opposite party. The husband/petitioner preferred a revisional application bearing C. O. No. 2975 of 2006 which was disposed of on 13. 02. 2007 directing to re-consider the claim of air fare only if a separate petition is filed to that effect. By the said order, the revisional court disposed of another C. O. No. 2976 of 2006 directing the trial Court to dispose of the application filed by the husband/petitioner under order 11 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (7) THE above facts are rather admitted. Now, the matter under consideration is whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the impugned order dated 31. 05. 2007. (8) THE order impugned is not a speaking one. It does not lay down any reason why the petition under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. But the trial Court has laid down the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of both the parties. 05. 2007. (8) THE order impugned is not a speaking one. It does not lay down any reason why the petition under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. But the trial Court has laid down the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of both the parties. (9) AS to the merit of the case at hand, I find that the interrogatories were asked for by the husband/petitioner in aid to his objection against the petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the wife/opposite party for medical reimbursement. An application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure like the present one can well be disposed of on the basis of application, affidavit, annexures and its objection supported by affidavit and annexures, which had been done in the trial Court. Not only that, the husband/petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in support of his objection. These are sufficient to dispose of the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The collection of additional materials by way of examination of the P. Ws. or interrogatories is seldom required for that purpose. (10) NO doubt, an application for alimony becomes a cardinal issue in the matrimonial suit. But, in the instant suit, I find that the wife/opposite party filed papers relating to her mediclaim with the concerned insurance company and that is why, the trial Court deducted a sum of Rs. 76,181. 75 paise which was covered by insurance and granted the balance claim of Rs. 3,06,081/ -. So the interrogatories so far as related to the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I hold are complied with. The interrogatories which lay down matters not related to the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure need not be answered by the wife/opposite party for the disposal of the said application. (11) ABOVE all, at the time of the disposal of the C. O. No. 2975 of 2006 and C. O. No. 2976 of 2006 by the Honble High Court at Calcutta by order dated 13. 02. (11) ABOVE all, at the time of the disposal of the C. O. No. 2975 of 2006 and C. O. No. 2976 of 2006 by the Honble High Court at Calcutta by order dated 13. 02. 2007 (by His Lordship Honble Justice S. P, Talukdar), the revisional Court has limited the scope of the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the matter of air fare portion only of the claim of the medical reimbursement. (12) DURING argument, the learned Advocate for the husband/ petitioner has referred to the rulings 1998-AIR (Bom)-0-302 and 2000-AIR- (Ker)-0-24 to show that interrogatories should be allowed to receive information from the opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. Such interrogatories can also shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice. In the instant suit, the interrogatories have been prayed for demolish the claim of medical reimbursement by the wife/opposite party. After disposal of the two revisional cases by the order dated 13. 02. 2007, I hold that the utility of interrogatories as prayed for has come to an end. So, two rulings are of no help for the husband/petitioner at present. (13) HAVING regard to such facts and circumstances, I hold that the prayer for interrogatories relating to the rest matter, that is, air fare lost its force. So I hold that the impugned order does not suffer from illegality. I hold that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order though the same is not a speaking one. (14) ACCORDINGLY, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed.