Honourable Mr. Anandamoy Bhattacharjee succeeded Hon’ble Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in 1994.
His Lordship was born on December 20th, 1933, Silliguri in Bengal Presidency. He attended the Siliguri Boys School and for higher education Justice Anandamoy attended St. Paul’s College, Scottish Church College, and University College of Law in Calcutta, a city where usually ambitious Bengalis used to go. Justice Anandamoy wasn’t a posh lawyer with a legendary ancestry. On January 7 and January 16, 1957, respectively, His Lordship enrolled as an advocate of the Calcutta High Court (A.S.) and as an advocate of the Calcutta High Court (O.S.).
In the district courts of Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri in West Bengal, as well as Gangtok in Sikkim, His Lordship practiced civil and criminal law. His Lordship served the Sikkim government as a legal adviser beginning in May 1972 and as the state’s advocate general beginning in June 1975. Justice Anandamoy choose to practice in the courts of Darjeeling, neighboring Jalpaiguri, and the Kingdom of Sikkim, north of Darjeeling, which India incorporated into herself. After all, beginning in May 1972, he served as the government of Sikkim’s legal advisor. He was appointed as a judge of the tiny Sikkim High Court in June 1976 at the age of 43. He was appointed Acting Chief Justice of the same Court in 1985. Justice Anandamoy Bhattacharjee also served as the Sikkim Law Commission’s chairman. His Lordship began serving as an acting chief justice of the Calcutta High Court on June 15, 1992, after being transferred as a judge of the Calcutta High Court on February 3, 1986. Jutsice Anandamoy Bhattacharjee was appointed Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on January 25, 1993, and on April 21, 1994, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. held office until April 4, 1995.
Some judgements by Anandamoy Bhattacharjee-
“Sm. Mita Gupta vs Prabir Kumar Gupta” The facts of the case are the respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the wife-appellant as well as the failure to restore conjugal rights for more than a year following the passing of a decree to that effect between the parties. The first two grounds were rejected by the trial court, but the third ground resulted in a divorce decision. However, under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the husband could have argued—without submitting any cross-objections—that the divorce petition should have been granted on those two grounds as well. But since the experienced attorney who represented the husband did not comply with that request, the only issue that this case required was whether the trial judge was correct in granting a divorce on the grounds that the parties had not restored their conjugal rights for more than a year after a restitution order had been granted in favor of the wife-appellant against the husband-respondent. The court in this case rejected the appeal and upheld the trial judge’s decision of dissolution of marriage as even if husband would have obstructed wife’s entry, he can as the act was done on 1-2-1977 and the decree for restitution was passed on 30-1-1976. No record shows that husband has committed any wrong before 1-2-1977. On 1-2-1977 the husband becomes legal entitled to divorce his wife.
“Chandra Bahadur Subba vs State And Anr.” In this case the accused was found guilty under Sections 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly engaging in adultery with a woman who was purportedly married to the complainant and for allegedly holding the said woman with the intention of engaging in illicit relations with her. Both these sections come under “of Offences relating to Marriage”. The court felt that in this case a strict proof of marriage is required. The Court the information it needs to decide whether a marriage actually occurred and was legal, as well as if a husband and wife had a relationship that was both real and legal at the time in issue. The wife being the complete sole defense witness claimed that she is a Bhutia Christian and her husband is a Bengali Hindu. Both of them married according to Nepali customs and rites by applying some mixture of curd and rice on the forehead. The court failed to understand how both the parties married according to the rites of a community none of them belonged to. Any admission made as stated above is completely insufficient to support the current prosecution, as it must be established that the marriage between the complainant and the woman in question could have occurred legally. At last, the appeal was allowed and the accused (appellant) was discharged from the bail bond.
A girl was raped by her instructor, according to the case “Sudhamay Nath Alias Bachhu vs State Of West Bengal.” The girl was a minor, between the ages of 12 and 13, who was enrolled in the fifth grade, according to the statement made by the appellant side. Her private instructor enticed her into a sexual encounter while promising to marry her. When the girl started feeling ill, it was discovered that she was pregnant. Even though he promised to marry her and care for the child when he signed the document, the accused in this case eventually refused. According to the girl’s statement, this was not the first time she became pregnant; in the past, she had also become pregnant, but with the help of the accuser, they were able to get the pregnancy terminated. The accused gave her some medication again this time, but the girl didn’t take it. She started feeling ill in the third month of her pregnancy, and then informed her parents about everything. However, clinical studies indicate that the girl is only about 19 to 20 years old. According to the case’s facts, the intercourse was consenting; nonetheless, if the girl is a minor, the respondent would be charged with and punished for rape in accordance with Section 376. According to the clinical studies, even if the girl and the tutor had sexual contact for the first time when she was 16 years old, it wouldn’t qualify as rape because it was voluntary. The defendant won’t be found guilty in accordance with Section 376, notwithstanding the court’s sympathy for the female and her kid who were abandoned on their own.
- CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ANANDAMOY BHATTACHARJEE, High Court of Bombay, https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/cjshow.php?bhcpar=amdldGlkPTI4JnBhZ2Vubz0y
- For God’s sake, go! The story of when the Bombay Bar brought down its Chief Justice, Sanjoy Ghose, Bar and Bench, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/for-gods-sake-go-the-story-of-when-the-bombay-bar-brought-down-its-chief
- Sudhamay Nath Alias Bachhu vs State Of West Bengal (1999) 3 CALLT 69 HC, 1999 CriLJ 4482
- Chandra Bahadur Subba vs State And Anr. 1978 CriLJ 942
- Sm. Mita Gupta vs Prabir Kumar Gupta AIR 1989 Cal 248, 93 CWN 50
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org