Decided on March 09,2022

GITA DAS Respondents


T.AMARNATH GOUD,J. - (1.)This is an appeal filed under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 10/12/2018 and 20/12/2018 respectively passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. T.S. (Divorce)83 of 2012, whereby, the divorce petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
(2.)The facts of the case in brief, which may be relevant for the present purpose and manifest on the record are that the marriage between the appellant here, Sri. Biswajit Das, and the respondent-Wife, Smt. Gita Das was solemnized at the parental house of the respondent at Narshingarh, Agartala on 30/1/2009 as per Hindu rites and customs and after observing all necessary formalities of Hindu Marriage. After marriage, the respondent-wife herein, Smt. Gita Das went to her in-laws' house in Beltai Road No. 12 and started to live along with her husband peacefully for a few days. But, after 15 days of their marriage, the respondent went to her parent's house at Narshingarh without the consent of the appellant-husband and after 3 to 4 days, she returned back to her in-laws' house. Thereafter, on several occasions, she used to visit her parent's house without the consent of the appellant-husband herein and when the appellant raised objection in that aspect, the respondent-wife would rebuke him in filthy and unhealthy language. Apart from that, the mother-in-law along with the sister-in-law of the appellant gave a proposal to the appellant to stay in their house as 'Ghar Jamai', but, the appellant-husband did not agree with such proposal. As a result of which, the respondent-wife did not keep any relation with the appellant-husband for about 7/8 months. There was no relationship between them despite that, the respondent-wife became pregnant without the knowledge of the appellant and without any cohabitation with him. On 25/10/2010, the respondent-wife left her in-laws' house when she was carrying a pregnancy. Again on 30/1/2011, she threatened the appellant to teach him a good lesson. After filing a false case, under Sec. 498A of the IPC, thereafter, she did not turn up to her matrimonial home till date. The respondent-wife is cruel in maintaining the relationship of husband and wife and she has also deprived the petitioner of conjugal life after 15 days of her marriage. As a result of which, the relationship between the appellant and respondent has irretrievably broken down. Moreover, she has been staying in her parental house continuously without the consent of the appellant and as such, she deserted the appellant only to deprive him to maintain conjugal relation. It is also alleged that on 30/1/2011, she visited her matrimonial home along with 9(nine) unknown persons, and the respondent-wife and her men threatened and assaulted the petitioner-husband to not disclose any activities to others. Ultimately, finding no other alternative, the appellant-husband herein as petitioner filed a case under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal life vide case No. T.S. (RCR) 60 of 2011. But, thereafter, the respondent-wife again filed a false case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala on 7/3/2011 under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Court passed an order on 30/3/2011 vide case No. CR. 39 of 2011 granting maintenance of Rs.2,500.00 per month.
(3.)On the ground that the respondent-wife on her own deserted the appellant for long period thereby depriving the appellant-husband to lead his conjugal life with the respondent, the appellant-husband herein as petitioner filed T.S. (Divorce)83 of 2012. The respondent-wife after receiving notice entered her appearance and also submitted her written statement denying the entire allegations and averments made in the divorce petition. It is also stated that the wife-respondent strongly denied the fact of desertion on 15/2/2010 rather the petitioner-husband and his sisters started mental and physical torture upon the respondent with unlawful demands. It is also stated that the respondent-wife and even her mother never gave any proposal to the petitioner-husband to stay in her parent's house as 'Ghar Jamai' rather the petitioner has made some baseless allegation by which he denied the paternity of the child as there was no cohabitation with the respondent. Though this assertion was not taken as a ground of divorce because the petitioner-husband is very much acquainted with the fact that he has given a false assertion and it has been made clear that, for this reason, the wife-respondent is even ready to take DNA test. Subsequently, the petitioner to defend such facts filed an RCR case without giving any intimation to the respondent. It is also stated that the wife-respondent made a prayer before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala for protection of women from Domestic Violence Act-2005. In the said prayer, the husband of the petitioner was not only made a party but his parents and two married sisters and one husband of the married sister was also made party as they were participating directly in the domestic violence to harm the wife-respondent and her child. Accordingly, after hearing both sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala on 30/3/2011 has passed some protection order in favour of the wife-respondent i.e. monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500.00 per month. Therefore, the grounds in divorce petition as taken by the petitioner is prima facie proved as false, and as such petitioner is in no way entitled to get any decree of divorce.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.