Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 322 (TRI)

Pijush Kanti Das v. Priyanka Rani Das

2022-08-04

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY, T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Gond, J. - This is an appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 19 of the Family Courts' Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.T.S. (Divorce) 385 of 2018, dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the appellant, Sri Pijush Kanti Das was solemnized with the respondent Smt. Priyanka Rani Das on 18.02.2011, as per Hindu rites and customs after observing all formalities of Hindu marriage in the house of the father of the respondent at Madhya Laxmibil. After marriage, both the appellant and the respondent started living together as husband and wife, and from their wedlock, a son was born on 05.01.2012. It is alleged that after some days of marriage, the appellant-husband noticed that the respondent-wife started to frequent visit her parental home without any permission of her parents-in-law. Knowing from his parents, after inquiry, he tried to convince the respondent but she started a quarrel with the appellant and told him that he is not the man of her choice and before marriage she was engaged with somebody. She also told that she is not interested to live with the petitioner as husband and wife. She also stopped doing her household work. It is further alleged that the respondent also pressurized him to leave his parents and stay in her parent's house as 'gharjamai' otherwise she would not be able to continue her marital life with him. One day while the appellant was on his duty at Agartala, his father-in-law came to his residential home at Ramcheera and without the consent of his parents took the respondent and her son to his house at Madhya Laxmibil and kept her in that house without any information to the appellant and his family members. Hearing this, the appellant rushed to his in-laws' house and requested her to come back but the respondent alleging some false allegations against him refused to come back to her matrimonial home. But somehow, the appellant convinced her and brought back her to her matrimonial home. Hearing this, the appellant rushed to his in-laws' house and requested her to come back but the respondent alleging some false allegations against him refused to come back to her matrimonial home. But somehow, the appellant convinced her and brought back her to her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that on 30.09.2012 while the appellant was on his duty he came to know over the telephone from his father that the respondent consumed poison and she was brought to the Bishalgarh PHC by his parents and subsequently brought to B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Hapania from Bishalgarh PHC for better treatment. On the following day on 01.10.2012, the father of the respondent lodged an FIR to Bishalarh P.S., against the appellant and his old-aged parents. The FIR was registered as Bishalgarh P.S. Case No.207/2012 under Section 498A/34 of IPC. After that FIR, the petitioner and his mother Smt. Jiban Rani Das was arrested and they were in custody for a long time and subsequently released on bail. His father was released on anticipatory bail. After completion of the trial, the appellant and his parents were acquitted by the learned Session Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, vide judgment dated 18.07.2018. 3. It is further submitted by the appellant that on 27.11.2012, the respondent filed an application under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. against the appellant before the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala for grant of monthly maintenance. The learned Court was pleased enough to grant Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent. Subsequently, in the year 2014, the respondent filed a case vide Misc. 440 of 2014 for enhancement of the maintenance allowance which was accordingly enhanced at Rs.6,500/- per month in favour of the respondent and her son. 4. The appellant herein on many occasions tried to reconcile with the respondent-wife but failed. Finding no other alternative, the appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala being case No.T.S.(RCR)336 of 2013. During the pendency of the case, the learned Court took several attempts for reconciliation but due to adamancy and reluctant attitude of the respondent-wife herein it failed. Thus the said application under Section 9 was dismissed by the learned Court. 5. During the pendency of the case, the learned Court took several attempts for reconciliation but due to adamancy and reluctant attitude of the respondent-wife herein it failed. Thus the said application under Section 9 was dismissed by the learned Court. 5. It is the further case of the appellant that the respondent had filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala for a decree of divorce vide case No.T.S.(Divorce)111 of 2014 which was accordingly dismissed by the learned Court. Thereafter, in the year 2016, the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the appellant and his parents before the learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala being Case No.C.R.699 of 2014. On 18.02.2017, the said case was dismissed by the learned Court challenging which, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the said Act before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala which was also dismissed by the learned Court. 6. The appellant further submits that after filling the first case in the year 2012, the appellant is living separately from the respondent without any reasonable grounds and excuse. The appellant tried his level best to live with the respondent as husband and wife and lead a happy conjugal life but the respondent willfully and without any reason refused and neglected the appellant. The respondent filed several cases against the appellant and his parents and harassed them and they have suffered lot of mental agonies. 7. Finding no other alternative, the appellant had preferred the petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as virtually the marital ties exist and carried no value as it has been already broken. 8. On receipt of notice issued by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala, the respondent has appeared and has submitted a written objection denying all the allegations made in the petition for divorce stating that after a few years of their marriage, the respondent began to face strange and suspicious behavior from the appellant. The appellant used to say that he was not interested in the marriage and being pressurized, he gave his consent to the marriage. The appellant used to say that he was not interested in the marriage and being pressurized, he gave his consent to the marriage. The respondent further stated that the appellant used to come home regularly in an intoxicated stage and behave rudely toward the respondent. He used abusive language against her and sometimes he even raised his hand in an attempt to torture her. The respondent further stated that from the very beginning of the matrimonial life, the appellant used to torture her on demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the construction of a house. On non-fulfillment of the demand, the respondent was tortured physically and mentally. The respondent further stated that the mother of the appellant always instigated him to increase the torture upon her to bring dowry from her parent's house. Several attempts were made by the father of the respondent to mitigate the dispute but failed. The respondent further submitted that the appellant and his family members had forced her to abort the child because, according to them, the child was an illegitimate one and when the respondent did not agree to abort; she was inflicted with physical injury by the appellant. The respondent further submitted that during the stay in the hospital for delivery, she did not receive any help or sympathy from her in-laws. After the birth of the child, the degree of torture increased. After the birth of the child, the appellant again demand Rs. 2,00,000/-(two lakhs) for purchasing a bike but when the respondent expressed his inability, the appellant with the instigation of the parents assaulted the respondent by fist and blows. Thereafter, the matter was informed to the panchayat and in the meeting held by the panchayat, the appellant and her in-laws admitted their guilt and apologized in presence of all persons. The respondent further stated that due to mental and physical torture, she was compelled to take shelter in her paternal house. The respondent further stated that the parents and the relatives of the respondent took several endeavours and held several meetings but due to the adamant attitude of the appellant, no fruitful result could be achieved. The respondent could not fulfill his illegal demand and as such the respondent is deprived of the right of cohabitation along with other conjugal rights. The respondent further stated that the parents and the relatives of the respondent took several endeavours and held several meetings but due to the adamant attitude of the appellant, no fruitful result could be achieved. The respondent could not fulfill his illegal demand and as such the respondent is deprived of the right of cohabitation along with other conjugal rights. The respondent further submitted that she had never demanded for moving to any separate establishment and is very much eager to reside with her husband and continue her marital life on the premises of her matrimonial house. 9. After hearing the argument of both sides, the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura Agartala dismissed the divorce petition vide T.S.(Divorce)385 of 2018 filed by the appellant by the judgment dated 08.03.2021 holding that the appellant has failed miserably to substantiate the facts for obtaining the decree of divorce against the respondent. 10. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband filed this instant appeal and prayed for the following reliefs:- 'i) Admit the Appeal; ii) Call for the lower courts record; iii) Issue notice upon the respondent; iv. After hearing both the sides, set aside the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.T.S.(Divorce)385 of 2018, as mentioned above and dissolve the marriage between the appellant and the respondent by a decree of divorce.' 11. Heard Ms. S. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband as well as Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife. 12. As per the order of this Court dated 28.07.2022, both the parties are personally present before this Court today along with their respective learned counsels. Both the parties have agreed to divorce. Towards permanent alimony, the petitioner-husband (Shri Pijush Kanti Das) has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) only along with the remaining arrears to the respondent-wife (Smt. Priyanka Rani Das) within 3(three) months from today to which the respondent-wife has agreed. On receipt of the said permanent alimony, the respondent-wife has agreed that she shall deposit Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only to the account of the son who is a minor till he attains his majority by way of a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank. 13. The respondent-wife is at liberty to use the remaining Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only for her personal use. 14. 13. The respondent-wife is at liberty to use the remaining Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only for her personal use. 14. The said agreement is made as consented by both the parties, and the same shall constitute the part and parcel of this order by way of an annexure. The said settlement which has been signed by both the parties and their respective learned counsels is reproduced herein below:- 'Both the parties are present personally before this Court today along with their respective learned counsels. Both the parties have agreed to divorce and towards permanent alimony. The husband (Shri Pijush Kanti Das) has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) only along with the remaining arrears to the wife (Smt. Priyanka Rani Das) within 3(three) months from today. On receipt of the said permanent alimony, the wife has agreed that she shall deposit Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only to the account of the son who is a minor till he attains his majority by way of a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank. The wife is at liberty to use the remaining Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) for her personal use.' 15. Since both sides agreed for divorce and to put a quietus to the litigation amongst the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife, and not to protract the litigation, the marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife performed on 18.02.2011 is dissolved and the order dated 08.03.2021 of the Court below is set aside and divorce is granted. 16. However, the decree of divorce will come to force only after the appellant-husband deposits the said amount as the permanent alimony to the respondent-wife. In the event, if the respondent-husband is interested to have visitation rights to his son, he is at liberty to take steps in accordance with the law. 17. Registry shall prepare the divorce decree and the same be issued. 18. With the above-mentioned terms, this instant appeal is allowed. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.