Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 355 (TRI)

Sujata Debnath v. Uttam Das Baishnab

2022-09-01

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY, T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Since Mat. App 12 of 2020 and Crl.Rev.Pet 48 of 2021 both are connected thus these petitions have been disposed of by way of common judgment and order. Mat.App 12 of 2020 2. The appellant (Sujata Debnath) in this case is the respondent before the Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in TS (Divorce) 279 of 2017 filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(2)(III) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 where the petitioner therein (Shri Uttam Das Baishnab) sought dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce and the court below by the judgment dated 09.12.2019 dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. Crl.Rev.Petn 48 of 2021 3. The petitioner (Shri Uttam Das Baishnab) in this case is the respondent before the Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Misc.218 of 2019 filed u/s 125 of Cr.P.C where the petitioner therein (Smt. Sujata Debnath (Das Baishnab) claimed maintenance allowance for herself and her minor son amounting to Rs.45,000/- per month from the O.P (Shri Uttam Das Baishnab). The Court below by the order dated 17.04.2021 directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month towards his wife until further order. Aggrieved thereby, the instant criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner-husband. 4. For the sake of brevity, the parties here will be referred to as in the cause title of TS(Divorce) 79 0f 2017. 5. It is the case of the appellant-wife that the respondent husband had filed a suit under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(2) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage against the appellant wife. During the trial, Ld. Trial Court framed five issues and examined three witnesses including the respondent as PWs and on the other hand appellant also submitted examination-in-chief supported by affidavit of two witnesses including herself and all the witnesses were examined and cross-examined during trial. After hearing, West Tripura allowed the application filed by respondent husband under Section 13(1)(ia)and 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Hence this appeal. 6. It is apparent from the record that the marriage of the appellant wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 25.03.2003 as per Hindu rights and customs and after marriage out of their wedlock a male child was born on 29.07.2005. Hence this appeal. 6. It is apparent from the record that the marriage of the appellant wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 25.03.2003 as per Hindu rights and customs and after marriage out of their wedlock a male child was born on 29.07.2005. Later on, the respondent-husband had filed an application under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage against the appellant-wife alleging inter alia that the marriage of the respondent-husband and appellant-wife was solemnized on 25.03.2003 as per Hindu rights and customs and the parental house of the appellant-wife and that the appellant-wife had deserted the respondent since July, 2012 without any valid reason and that she did not resume conjugal rights since thereafter. The respondent-husband also alleged that the appellant wife is a patient of mental disorder namely 'Obsessive Compulsive Disorder'. 7. The trial court after perusing the pleadings of both sides has formulated the following issues for proper and effective adjudication of the case: Issues (i) Whether the instant suit is maintainable in its present form and nature. (ii) Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent since after their marriage and lastly on July 2012? (iii) Whether the wife-respondent is suffering from any mental disorder or mental illness prior to her marriage thereby treated the petitioner with cruelty? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? (v) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? 8. While dealing with the issue No. I, the trial court has observed that from the evidence on record it is clear that the marriage was solemnized in between the parties in the house of the parents of the respondent at Shibnagar, Agartala within the jurisdiction of this court. The respondent also did not raise any other plea challenging the maintainability of the instant suit. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances it is clear that the instant suit is very much maintainable in its present form and nature and this court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit. 9. For the sake of convenience, both the issues (No.II and III) were taken up together by the trial court. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances it is clear that the instant suit is very much maintainable in its present form and nature and this court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit. 9. For the sake of convenience, both the issues (No.II and III) were taken up together by the trial court. It was observed by the trial court that on perusal of the record it is found that the dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent started from July 2010 when the respondent chose to stay in her parent's house along with her minor son without any cogent and reasonable ground and at that time, the husband-petitioner also did not raise any objection rather he also used stay along with the respondent in her parent's house. But sometime in the year May 2012, the petitioner took the respondent to NIMHANS, Bangalore, for her treatment where the attending doctor diagnosed that the respondent has been suffering from 'Obsessive Compulsive Disorder' which is a mental syndrome alleged by the petitioner. Thereafter, after returning from NIMHANS, Bangalore the dispute cropped up in between both the parties, as a result of which the respondent filed a maintenance case and thereafter she also filed a RCR case before the Ld. Jude, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, for restitution of her conjugal rights. After getting Notice of RCR case, the petitioner appeared in that case and subsequently he filed a divorce petition on 23.08.2017. It is an admitted fact that since July 2010, the respondent has been living separately from the petitioner in her parent's house along with their minor son and the respondent herself admitted such fact in her written statement that in such a state of affair in the first week of July 2010, the petitioner deserted the wife-respondent, stopped rendering this marital duties and responsibilities towards the respondent and the Child. 10. It was further alleged by the petitioner before the court below that while he was admitted for treatment at Chennai in the year 2004, his wife refused to take care of the petitioner during post surgical period and also neglected to cook for him could be a clear instance of causing annoyance which may lead to mental cruelty. 10. It was further alleged by the petitioner before the court below that while he was admitted for treatment at Chennai in the year 2004, his wife refused to take care of the petitioner during post surgical period and also neglected to cook for him could be a clear instance of causing annoyance which may lead to mental cruelty. From the evidence on record, it is found that the parties have no emotion, sentiment or feeling for each other since July 2010 at the time of cross-examination the petitioner also admitted that at present he has not affection for his child. This fact also clears the case of irretrievable break down on marriage. 11. It was further observed by the trial court that the petitioner in that case sought for decree of divorce on the ground of mental disorder of the respondent and in that aspect the petitioner also submitted the certified copy of screen reports of NIMHANS, Bangalore where the respondent was examined by doctors. But the petitioner has failed to give any formal proof of this document by examining any expert who actually attended the respondent at NIMHANS, Bangalore on 14.05.2012. Moreover, on perusal of the entire report, it is found that it contains 'symptom check list'. But there is no expert opinion which reveals that the respondent has been suffering from any kind of mental disorder as alleged by the petitioner. Mere filing of prescription and Medical reports does not draw any conclusion that the respondent has been suffering from any mental disorder because without getting expert opinion nobody can say whether the respondent has been suffering from any mental disorder or not? Therefore, the petitioner-husband has failed to produce any doctor who attended the respondent during the alleged treatment at NIMHANS, Bangalore. 12. The trial court was of the view that the petitioner in this case has been able to substantiate the fact that he has been treated with cruelty by the respondent since after marriage and on from July 2012, he has been deprived of his legitimate right of cohabitation. Moreover, the evidence on record clearly shows that the respondent has without any cogent ground deserted the petitioner and chose to live separately from the petitioner depriving their conjugal rights amounts to mental cruelty of which the petitioner deserves a decree of divorce as prayed for. Moreover, the evidence on record clearly shows that the respondent has without any cogent ground deserted the petitioner and chose to live separately from the petitioner depriving their conjugal rights amounts to mental cruelty of which the petitioner deserves a decree of divorce as prayed for. Moreover, from the evidence on record it is also clearly established that since July 2012 the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any cogent ground and during pendency of this case, this court has also made several endeavour to resolve their dispute through reconciliation but due to adamant attitude of the respondent the step for reconciliation has failed and as such considering these aspects this court is of the view that the marriage tie in between the petitioner and the respondent has been irretrievably broken down. There is no chance of their reunion. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce as prayed for on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Hence, both the issues are decided partly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. 13. Finally, the trial court by the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2019 has observed as follows: 'In the result, the prayer of the petitioner is hereby allowed. Accordingly, it is held that the marriage tie between the petitioner, Sri Uttam Das Baishnab and the respondent Smt. Sujata Debnath is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with immediate effect. From today there will be no marital bondage inbetween the petitioner and the respondent. In the instant case, the respondent failed to adduce any evidence in respect of her legitimate right of maintenance or alimony. However, it appears from the case record that at present she is getting a maintenance for herself and her minor son from the petitioner and as such reserving the rights of maintenance/alimony of the respondent-wife, this court finds no ground to award any further relief in favour of the wife-respondent in respect of her maintenance and alimony in this suit.' 14. Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the appellant by way of the instant petition submits before this court that the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.12.2019 in TS(Divorce) 279 of 2017 is absolutely, illegal, perverse, materially irregular, unjust and cannot sustain in law and as such liable to be set aside. Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the appellant by way of the instant petition submits before this court that the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.12.2019 in TS(Divorce) 279 of 2017 is absolutely, illegal, perverse, materially irregular, unjust and cannot sustain in law and as such liable to be set aside. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Ld. Trial Court below by way of non-reading, misreading and wrong and improper appreciation of evidence on record arrived at absolutely wrong and erroneous findings causing grave injustice to the appellant. It is further argued by the counsel for the appellant that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that respondent husband create such bad situation that the appellant had to live separately from her husband and the respondent also tortured the appellant mentally and physically to live separately, so that the respondent could file a divorce case against the appellant wife on the ground of cruelty. Moreover, according to counsel for the appellant the trial court failed to consider that the appellant-wife was eager to cohabit with the respondent-husband and she had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights being registered as TS (CRC) 10 of 2016. 15. On the contrary, Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband submits before this court that impugned judgment and decree dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura District, in case No. TS (Divorce) 279 of 2017 is just and proper and needs no interference by this court. 16. In course of argument, it is brought to the knowledge of this court by the counsel appearing for the respondent that earlier the minor son was in the custody of the appellant-wife. But presently the respondent-husband is taking care of the minor son who is a drug addict and he is undergoing therapy in rehabilitation centre and prayed before this court to opt leniency while deciding permanent alimony and the monthly allowances to be paid by the respondent herein. 17. When the present case was listed before this court on 17.03.2022, both the parties were called for their personal appearance. After due discussion with the parties, the husband seemed reluctant to accept the wife and the wife had shown very much interest to join the husband. 17. When the present case was listed before this court on 17.03.2022, both the parties were called for their personal appearance. After due discussion with the parties, the husband seemed reluctant to accept the wife and the wife had shown very much interest to join the husband. With regard to the point of maintenance, the husband represented that recently he had been removed from the service and he was unemployed. So, he had no source of income. 18. After perusing the entire records so placed before this court and also having heard the counsel for the parties, this court feels that in the background of the surrounding circumstances, there is no chance of repairing the marital tie, whoever may be responsible for that, either the appellant or the respondent or both, and this has prompted us to hold that the marriage, the solemn act of a life, is dead and has lost all its meaning, which cannot be refurbished or rebuild. Any fresh attempt for survival of the marital tie between the appellant or the respondent would be a futile exercise, which will advance more complication, which will not be a healthier one to either of them. We are satisfied that all emotion and sentiment grown naturally after the marriage, upon the couple, no longer exists and artificial reunion by an order of this court would be an empty formality. This court feels that if the marriage is dissolved, both the appellant and the respondent will be relieved of their respective pain and anguish. 19. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal being Mat. App 12 of 2020 stands dismissed affirming the judgment dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Family Court, in TS (Divorce) 279 of 2017 under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(2)(III) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 20. Since the marriage between the parties has been dissolved, this Court cannot merely shut its eyes with regard to deciding the future prospect of a lady who is the respondent-wife in Crl.Rev.Petn 48 of 2021. This court feels that when a relationship no longer subsists between the parties, it is quite obvious that single lady would face many challenges to lead a peaceful life without any economic support. At this juncture, petitioner-husband offered Rs. 4 lakhs and respondent-wife demanded 15 lakhs towards permanent alimony. This court feels that when a relationship no longer subsists between the parties, it is quite obvious that single lady would face many challenges to lead a peaceful life without any economic support. At this juncture, petitioner-husband offered Rs. 4 lakhs and respondent-wife demanded 15 lakhs towards permanent alimony. Taking into consideration, the future expenditure that would be required by the respondent-wife and also giving due weightage to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner-husband with regard to his financial status, the instant criminal revision petition being Crl.Rev.Petn 48 of 2021 is dismissed with the direction to the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.8 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife along with the arrears due till date within a period of three months from today. It is needless to mention that the petitioner-husband shall continue to take care of the minor child and shall perform the duty of a responsible father without any fail. 21. With the above observation, both the petitions stand disposed of.