Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 451 (GAU)

Rubul Baruah v. Ruptrishna Dutta

2019-04-09

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.S.BOPANNA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Sarkar and Ms. S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N.N. Jha, Mr. M.K. Raut and Ms. M. Sahoo, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 25.7.2017 passed by the District Judge, Jorhat in (Marriage) Title Suit No.34 of 2015. The appellant herein is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was registered on 26.12.2012 and a social marriage had been held on 11.03.2012. They have no issue out of the marriage. However, certain marital discord developed between the parties and, as such, they were residing separately after an incident that is said to have taken place on 26.7.2013. In that background, the respondent herein filed the petition under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage. The allegation was that the appellant herein had inflicted mental cruelty on the respondent and, in that regard, the allegation was that immediately after one week of their marriage, the appellant started to misbehave, ill treat and harass the respondent without any rhyme or reason. The sister of the appellant also interfered in their marital life, but the appellant did not care for the feeling of the respondent, instead, on listening to his sister would rebuke the respondent using slang language. She alleged that she did not get respect and care from her husband. When this was the position, on 26.7.2013, while they were returning back from Tinsukia to Numaligarh, the appellant suddenly stopped the car on the way at Dergaon town at 7.00 P.M., left her all alone and went away. Hence, the respondent being unable to live with the appellant due to such cruel acts, had instituted the petition. 3. The appellant herein appeared in the proceeding and filed a written statement whereby all the allegations were denied. It was contended that the sister of the appellant is a married lady who was residing with her husband and children and, as such, there was no interference. It was further contended that though he wanted a child, the same was not possible and the gynaecological problem of the respondent was attended to and, in that circumstance, the appellant contends that he had not inflicted cruelty, but had taken care of her. 4. It was further contended that though he wanted a child, the same was not possible and the gynaecological problem of the respondent was attended to and, in that circumstance, the appellant contends that he had not inflicted cruelty, but had taken care of her. 4. Based on the rival pleadings, the Court below framed as many as five (5) issues for consideration, which read as hereunder : (1) Whether there is any cause of action for the present suit? (2) Whether the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.12.2012 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954? (3) Whether the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent? (4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for divorce by dissolving the marriage with the respondent? (5) To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? 5. In order to discharge the burden cast on the parties based on the issues, the respondent herein examined herself as P.W. 1 and examined her cousin Shri Jyoti Prasad Dutta as P.W. 2, while her father Shri Chandra Kumar Dutta was examined as P.W. 3. The respondent examined himself as D.W.1 by filing his evidence-on-affidavit. The Court below on adverting to the contentions put forth and the evidence tendered, has arrived at the conclusion that the respondent herein has established the case and has, accordingly, granted the decree of dissolution. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment seeks to contend that the petition before the Court at Jorhat was not maintainable, as the parties did not reside therein nor had the marriage taken place at that place. The parents of the respondent are residing at Golaghat. It is contended that though such contention was urged, the Court below has not adverted to the same. Insofar as the merit of the case, it is contended that the Court below without sufficient evidence being available on record, has wrongly accepted the allegation and granted the decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty. Hence, he seeks that the judgment be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the evidence available on record has referred to the judgment passed by the Court below to contend that the Court below having taken note of the evidence has analyzed the same and has arrived at its conclusion. Accordingly, he contends that the judgment does not call for interference. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the evidence available on record has referred to the judgment passed by the Court below to contend that the Court below having taken note of the evidence has analyzed the same and has arrived at its conclusion. Accordingly, he contends that the judgment does not call for interference. 8. In the light of the above, it is to be taken note that the address as furnished in the petition is that she is a resident of Jorhat. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a contention that the respondent is not a resident of the said place, the appellant himself in his cross-examination has accepted the fact that she was residing at that place as her uncle and others are residing therein. That apart, the Passport of the respondent, which is available on record, would indicate her place of birth as at Jorhat and, in such circumstance, when the said Court had jurisdiction, the contention does not merit consideration. 9. Insofar as the merit of the case as put forth, it is seen that the respondent had examined herself as P.W.1, wherein she has referred to the instances that have taken place when she was residing with her husband. She has stated that her husband had started misbehaving with her and was torturing her with cruelty. Though the sister of her husband Jyotishmita Baruah Dutta was married, she was torturing her in different ways by interfering with the personal life. When P.W.1 confided with her husband, he had insulted her instead by confronting her by using bad language instead of advising his sister, due to which she was very much hurt. She has stated that though they had been to California, the manner in which her sister-in-law was gossiping and making false allegations, had hurt her. She has also stated that neither the husband nor his family members treated her with respect though she was educated, but on the other hand she was treated like a maid/slave. In addition, she has referred to the incident of 26.7.2013 when she was travelling from Jorhat to Numaligarh by car when her husband stopped the car at around 7.00 P.M. at Dergaon town and asked her to step out of the car and he left her alone there and went away. In addition, she has referred to the incident of 26.7.2013 when she was travelling from Jorhat to Numaligarh by car when her husband stopped the car at around 7.00 P.M. at Dergaon town and asked her to step out of the car and he left her alone there and went away. She had to, thereafter, take a bus and go back to Gayan Village in Jorhat all alone. Though she has been cross-examined, there is nothing material to indicate that her statement has been discredited. 10. The evidence as tendered by the respondent herein as P.W.1 is corroborated through the evidence of P.W.2, her cousin, and P.W.3, her father. Her father has also stated with regard to the incident of 26.7.2013 when his daughter was asked to get down from the car at 7.00 P.M. in the night and when she had to take a bus to go back to the Jorhat all alone. The evidence as tendered would indicate the instances by which mental cruelty was inflicted by the appellant. 11. Though the appellant herein in his evidence has sought to reiterate the averments as made in the written statement and has sought to put forth his version about the incident on 26.7.2013 to contend that it was the respondent wife who had actually got down from the car and gone away, such contention does not merit the confidence of this Court. When it is a fact that the incident had occurred on 26.7.2013, the fact also remains that the appellant husband was driving the car and unless he had stopped the car and facilitated the respondent-wife, that too, at a moment when there was heated conversation and misunderstanding, the incident could not have occurred. That apart, when she has got down from the car at 7.00 P.M. and was all alone, irrespective of the manner in which the incident occurred, the respondent owed a duty to care for his wife and abandoning her on a public road will not be an acceptable conduct to be condoned. In such circumstance, if the respondent is hurt by the incident and such cruelty being inflicted has given cause to the petition in addition to the earlier instances, the evidence as tendered is required to be accepted. 12. In such circumstance, if the respondent is hurt by the incident and such cruelty being inflicted has given cause to the petition in addition to the earlier instances, the evidence as tendered is required to be accepted. 12. In the above background, on re-appreciating the evidence available on record, a perusal of the judgment passed by the Court below would indicate that the Court below on taking note of the evidence has arrived at the conclusion that the case of the husband having inflicted mental cruelty on the wife, as contended, is required to be accepted. In that circumstance, when the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that the marriage is to be dissolved, we do not find any other contrary material to arrive at a different conclusion and to interfere with the judgment passed by the Court below. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.