Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1126 (GAU)

Anita Baishya v. Rajesh Talukdar

2017-08-17

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. This appeal is by the wife - Anita Baishya - against the judgment dated 29.1.2015 passed by the District Judge, Nalbari in Title Suit (M) No. 31/2013, whereby the petition filed by her husband - Rajesh Talukdar - for passing a decree of judicial separation under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’) has been allowed. 2. Facts in short are these. Appellant and respondent were married on 6.5.2013 and they started their married life in the house of respondent. According to respondent, just about 6/7 days after marriage, appellant started treating his family members cruelly and used to abuse all in filthy languages. On 31.5.2013, she came out of the house without any rhyme or reason and abused his family members in loud voice with filthy languages. He then intimated her family members about her abnormal behaviour and on the next day, her uncle and brother came to his house and took her to her paternal house in presence of the village headman with a promise to return her when her behaviour improved. Therefore, since it was not possible to live with her, he filed the suit on 20.6.2013 for a decree of judicial separation in the Court of District Judge, Nalbari on the ground of cruelty. Also, after receiving the notice from the court, the appellant made a false report against him and his parents under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Appellant contested the suit denying the allegations made by respondent regarding cruelty meted out to him as well as his parents. She contended that after marriage, respondent started demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000 besides refrigerator, washing machine, colour television, mixer grinder, etc., at the instigation of his family members and on 31.5.2013, she was tortured on demand of dowry and none came for help. Respondent called her family members and asked them to take her back. Her uncle and brother came next day and took her with them. As such she was made to leave the matrimonial home and she was willing to resume conjugal life. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial court disbelieved the case of appellant and decreed respondent's petition for judicial separation. According to the trial court, respondent succeeded in proving the ground of cruelty meted out to him by the appellant. 5. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial court disbelieved the case of appellant and decreed respondent's petition for judicial separation. According to the trial court, respondent succeeded in proving the ground of cruelty meted out to him by the appellant. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also after perusing the record, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, a criminal case for an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the appellant against the respondent and his family members after having received the court notice for judicial separation. In that criminal case, the respondent was arrested and sent to jail for 15 days till he was granted bail. The trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari) after appreciating the evidence of appellant and other prosecution witnesses vide judgment dated 20.2.2017 passed in GR Case No. 887/2013 acquitted the respondent and his family members of the charge on the ground that the prosecution grossly failed to prove its case. Apparently, the appellant treated the respondent and his family members with cruelty by lodging false criminal case against them. Otherwise also, Jyotish Talukdar (PW-2) and Dhiren Chandra Medhi (PW-3) have supported the evidence of respondent that appellant had abused him and his family members publicly. 6. In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 , the Supreme Court has held that when a false case is lodged by the wife under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, it amounts to cruelty on the husband and he is entitled for decree of divorce. We do not see any justifiable ground to differ with the said position of law and deny respondent a decree of judicial separation. This being the position, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the trial court that respondent is entitled for decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. We accordingly affirm the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.