Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 410 (TRI)

Rupak Banik v. Suparna Paul

2022-12-06

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the Judgment dated 16.03.2021 passed in T.S.(Null) 1 of 2020 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura whereby the learned Court below declared the marriage between the appellant and the respondent dated 10.08.2019 as null and void. 2. The fact of the case, in brief, according to the appellant-Sri Rupak Banik is that, the respondent herein, Smt. Suparna Paul is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized at the house of Nidhan Paul of village-Office tilla, under Bishalgarh P.S. on 10th August 2019 according to Hindu religion, Vedic rites and ceremonies. The marriage declaration was done between them on 6th September 2019 before the Notary Public at Bishalgarh. After that, a 'certificate of marriage' bearing No.148 SDM/BLG/JDL was also issued on 13.09.2019 in favour of them. After marriage, the respondent-wife herein always insisted upon the appellant that he should live apart from the other members of his family, and the respondent used to detest not only the parents of the appellant but also the other members of the family. The appellant herein is a driver by profession at the time of marriage and as he was not having a satisfactory job, the respondent-wife turned up against the appellant and deserted him without sufficient reason and filed a petition before the learned Family Court, Sepahijala, Sonamura under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to declare the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as a nullity. The said petition was registered as T.S.(Null) 01 of 2020. 3. The respondent-wife herein as petitioner in that petition raised the ground that she did not know any Nidhan Paul nor she visited the house of Nidhan Paul on 10.08.2019. Therefore, the question of marriage does not arise. The respondent further submitted that in the notice dated 19.11.2019, the appellant herein did not aver that 'Saptapadi' was made before the sacred fire as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The respondent further averred that the signature of the respondent was taken on a blank paper and as such denied the notarial affidavit. The respondent also stated that the joint photograph was taken without letting the respondent herein know the purpose of such photograph. The respondent further averred that the signature of the respondent was taken on a blank paper and as such denied the notarial affidavit. The respondent also stated that the joint photograph was taken without letting the respondent herein know the purpose of such photograph. The respondent further stated that the respondent on a bonafide belief went to the office of the SDM, Bishalgarh and under the pressure of the appellant herein was compelled to state before the SDM, Bishalgarh regarding the marriage. 4. The appellant herein contested the suit by filing a written statement and in that written statement he stated as mentioned herein-above. 5. The learned Court below framed the following issues:- 'i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? ii) Whether there is any cause of action for filing the suit? iii) Whether the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is a voidable marriage? iv) Whether any valid marriage was solemnized in between the petitioner and the respondent at any point of time as per Hindu rites and customs? v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the alleged marriage dated 10.08.2019 in between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void? vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the Marriage certificate bearing No.148 SDM/BLG/JDL, issued by the SDM, Bishalgarh is illegal, void and inoperative? vii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the decree, as prayed for? viii) Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief/relieves?' 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.2021 held that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is voidable and as such declared the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as null and void. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred this instant appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2021 passed in T.S.(Null)1 of 2020 by the learned judge, Family Court Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura. 8. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein submitted before this Court that the appellant and respondent had known each other since long before marriage and after they became intimate, they decided to marry each other according to their own will. Both parties freely consented to the solemnization of marriage with full knowledge of the nature of the ceremony. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein submitted before this Court that the appellant and respondent had known each other since long before marriage and after they became intimate, they decided to marry each other according to their own will. Both parties freely consented to the solemnization of marriage with full knowledge of the nature of the ceremony. The appellant had adduced the necessary documentary evidence and the Court below failed to consider the same. Stating thus, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein urged to allow this appeal. 9. Mr. R. Datta, learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondent herein vehemently opposed the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and urged this Court to uphold the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2021. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the evidence on record. 11. When the respondent-wife is not interested to stay with the appellant-husband, this Court cannot force the respondent-wife to stay with the appellant-husband. Moreover, according to the appellant, their marriage was solemnized in the house of Nidhan Paul, but said Nidhan Paul was not cited as a witness by the appellant herein before the Court below. The appellant-husband had not produced either the Notary Officer or the Notary Register Book or any representative from the Notary Office Bishalgarh or any identifying Advocate or any witness before the Court below in support of the alleged 'Marriage Declaration Certificate'. The respondent had also not produced either the SDM, Bishalgarh or any of his authorized representatives or the Marriage Registration Book of the Bishalgarh, SDM Office in the case before the Court below to support the alleged 'Certificate of Marriage'. Even the attesting witness had not been examined by the appellant-husband before the Court below. Thus this Court feels that no case has been made out by the appellant herein 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment dated 16.03.2021 as passed by the Court below is just and proper and needs no interference, and the same is upheld. Accordingly, this instant appeal is dismissed. 13. This Court appreciates the assistance of learned amicus curiae and directs the State Legal Services Authority to pay the fees as admissible to Mr. R. Datta, learned amicus curiae as per the procedure. 14. Consequently, pending application(s) if any also stands closed.