Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 672 (GAU)

Swapan Kumar Das v. Maya Rani Dutta

2006-07-26

A.B.PAL, RANJAN GOGOI

body2006
JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. By this appeal the judgment dated 6.1.2000 passed by learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (Divorce) 52 of 1994 refusing to dissolve a marriage has been put under challenge by the appellant husband. 2. The marriage which was sought to be dissolved by the appellant was solemnised on 13.12.1990 with the respondent herein in her parents' house at Ramnagar Road No. 5, Agartala. The husband comes from the same Town having his house at Joynagar. At the time of marriage while the husband was posted at Agartala as Inspector, Sales Tax Department under the Government of Tripura, the wife, also a Government servant, was posted at Sabroom in South Tripura District. After the marriage, the couple peacefully and happily ushered into the conjugal bliss of their lives, but without continuity as they were serving in different places. Only on holidays or by taking leave they could enjoy the conjugal bliss in the house of the appellant husband. After few months, in July, 1990 the appellant was transferred to Churaibari in North Tripura District while the respondent continued to serve in Sabroom, the two places being at extreme North point and South point of the State. They continued to meet and live together for brief period on holidays or by taking leave coming from Churaibari and Sabroom and staying in the house of the appellant. A son was born to them on 24.1.1992 at Agartala when the appellant was at Churaibari. The respondent before the delivery came from Sabroom to Agartala and stayed in her husband's house with her in-laws. She was taken to the hospital by the younger brother of the appellant and after the birth of the son, she went to the house of her parents for better care and nursing. Upto this stage there was apparently nothing wrong between the spouses to sour their relation. When the Brata of the baby, a customary celebration on completion of a month from the birth, was to be organised and to attend that function the appellant came from Churaibari and sent Rs. 2,000 and clothes through his brother (P.W. 2), the relation started to suffer hiccups. The money and the presents were handed over by P.W. 2 to the brother of the respondent on the day before the Brata, which was not taken kindly by the respondent. 2,000 and clothes through his brother (P.W. 2), the relation started to suffer hiccups. The money and the presents were handed over by P.W. 2 to the brother of the respondent on the day before the Brata, which was not taken kindly by the respondent. Perhaps she expected her husband's visit after reaching Agartala, but when she received the money and the gift instead, she might have been emotionally upset. She came to the house of her husband, met him, returned the money and the gift and went back to her parents' house. This was followed by visit of the appellant with his brother to the house of the respondent's parents. But they were allegedly not given due courtesy, which angered and annoyed the appellant. The conjugal relation thus went down with fissures surfacing and widening. Finally the couple ceased to live together even for brief period creating thereby an emotional cleavage. The prolonged estrangement prompted the appellant in the long run to file the suit for dissolution of their marriage. 3. The grounds taken by the appellant to build his case against his wife were (i) desertion, and (ii) cruelty, which fall within the grounds provided in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') for dissolution of a Hindu marriage. To show a case of cruelty by the respondent, the appellant has narrated certain incidents and behaviour of his wife in his deposition before the learned Trial Court. His allegation is that though after the marriage she used to come from Sabroom on holidays and stay with him in his house, she used to visit her parents and show inclination to live with them. Secondly, she used to pick up quarrel with his mother and brothers. Thirdly, in her letters to him, she expressed that his mother and the brothers were enemies of the appellant. Fourthly, she used to put pressure on him to live separately from his mother and brothers. Fifthly, during the occasion of the Brata of his son, his money and gift were returned and he was not shown courtesy in her parents' house when he and his brother visited. All these acts, according to the appellant, constituted mental cruelty, which resulted to a mental separation. Fifthly, during the occasion of the Brata of his son, his money and gift were returned and he was not shown courtesy in her parents' house when he and his brother visited. All these acts, according to the appellant, constituted mental cruelty, which resulted to a mental separation. As regards other ground of desertion, it is the specific allegation of the appellant that since the date of Brata, the respondent chose not to return to the maternal home and live separately. These two grounds actuated the appellant to file the suit on 1.10.1994 after waiting for more than two and half years. 4. The respondent strongly objected to all the allegations in her written statement and her deposition contending, inter alia, that the marital relation was absolutely smooth and never it suffered any kind of jolts. According to her, even before the birth of the child, she came from Sabroom and lived with her in-laws when she was in advance stage of pregnancy even though her husband was at that time staying at Churaibari. After the birth of the son she went to the house of her parents with the consent of her husband where she stayed only for a month. After the Brata she came back to her husband's house and lived with her in-laws. After staying at Agartala for a continuous period of three months, she returned to Sabroom to her place of posting. She denied that any discourtesy was shown to her husband or his brother. On the contrary, all the family members of her husband participated in the Brata of the baby. She also denied the allegation that at any point of time, she misbehaved with her mother-in-law and others in the family. Even after the suit was filed, she visited her husband at Churaibari, stayed with him there. She also visited her husband's house at Agartala and expressed her desire to lead a conjugal life. According to her, no circumstances did at all appear occasioning cruelty or desertion as alleged in the petition for divorce and proceeding from that stand, she strongly opposed the prayer of her husband for dissolution of marriage. 5. She also visited her husband's house at Agartala and expressed her desire to lead a conjugal life. According to her, no circumstances did at all appear occasioning cruelty or desertion as alleged in the petition for divorce and proceeding from that stand, she strongly opposed the prayer of her husband for dissolution of marriage. 5. The learned Trial Court after careful analysis of the deposition of the appellant and his brother on the one side and that of the respondent on the other has taken the view that the types of incidences or behaviour of the respondent presented by the appellant herein are so trifling that they do not constitute cruelty to be a basis for dissolution of a marriage. Such misunderstanding or dispute may be due to lack of adjustment, which should not be allowed to abrogate a relation, particularly when from the wedlock a child was born. The allegations and grievances put forward by the husband were not considered by the learned Trial Court to be serious enough to say that the cruelty or desertion as alleged has irretrievably broken down the marital tie. After refusing to dissolve the marriage, the learned Trial Court directed the respondent to reside with her husband along with the son and so long the direction was not materialised, the minor son would get Rs. 1,000 per month as maintenance from the appellant. 6. We have heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. Debbarma, learned Counsel for the respondent. 7. It is not necessary to reiterate the grievances and allegations of the appellant, which we have already noticed above. Apart from him, the appellant, examined his brother Tapan Kumar Das (P.W.2), whose deposition, after a closer scrutiny would show that nothing serious had happened for the spouses to call it a day. According to this witness, the respondent used to come from Sabroom to Agartala to live with the appellant in their house almost every Friday. At the time of the child's birth, she came and stayed with them even though the appellant was at Churaibari. This witness himself arranged for her admission in the hospital for delivery and after the birth of the child she went to her parents' house with their consent. At the time of the child's birth, she came and stayed with them even though the appellant was at Churaibari. This witness himself arranged for her admission in the hospital for delivery and after the birth of the child she went to her parents' house with their consent. The appellant also came to Agartala 4/5 days after the birth of the child and used to visit her in her parents' house almost everyday. But after few days, he left for Churaibari. He returned again on the day before the Brata and sent through him presents and money, which he handed over to the brother of the respondent. On the day of Brata, the respondent came to their house and returned the money and the presents. He cannot say what happened between the spouses on that issue. Then the appellant along with this witness went to the house of the respondent's parents, but none was there to receive them. After waiting for some time, they returned and since then the respondent did not come to their house. On 25.8.1996 the respondent came to their house and expressed her intention to live with her husband. The appellant then replied that he would give the decision after consulting his neighbours. Thereafter both the appellant and the respondent agreed that they would wait for the decision of the Court in the divorce case before they start to live together again. 8. What emerges from the above discussion is that the differences projected by the appellant expressing his grievances against behaviour of his wife are so minor and trifling as has been correctly observed by the learned Trial Court that the same, in our considered view, do not amount to cruelty. The significant development during the pendency of this proceeding that the respondent visited Churaibari and lived there with her husband, the appellant herein and thereafter again she came to Agartala and expressed her intention to live with her husband are also to be noticed and appreciated carefully. As we have learnt from P.W.2 that after due consultation on the question of resuming the conjugal tie, the husband and the wife have agreed to wait till disposal of the divorce proceeding, we consider it necessary and appropriate to let these spouses settled their own disputes and close their differences mutually. As we have learnt from P.W.2 that after due consultation on the question of resuming the conjugal tie, the husband and the wife have agreed to wait till disposal of the divorce proceeding, we consider it necessary and appropriate to let these spouses settled their own disputes and close their differences mutually. As we have seen, neither the allegation of cruelty nor that of desertion has been proved to our satisfaction for annulling the marriage and in this respect we are entirely in agreement with the finding of the learned Trial Court. 9. In the result and for the reasons aforementioned, this appeal has no merit. The judgment impugned does not call for interference by this Court and, accordingly, the same is upheld. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.