Decided on March 13,2018

Bismita Saikia Appellant
Pranjal Dutta Respondents


AJIT SINGH,CJ. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the wife-Smti Bismita Saikia-against the impugned judgement and decree dated 15.9.14 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati, allowing the suit for divorce filed against her by husband -Sri Pranjal Dutta. Earlier, the impugned Judgment and Decree was challenged by the appellant before this court through the instant appeal which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 24.6.2015 by another Division Bench. On 21.7.2016, the Appellant filed Review Petition No.85/2016 on the ground that the judgment of the Division Bench was not tenable as the same was passed on the basis of some incorrect factual matrix and this court, also being satisfied about the fact that it's earlier judgment was based on incorrect facts, allowed that review petition vide order dated 04.04.2017 setting aside the earlier judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.06.2015, with a direction to list the instant appeal for re-hearing. This is how this matter has been listed before us for re-hearing and deciding afresh. It may be pertinent to mention here that after the dismissal of appeal and during the pendency of review petition, the respondent has remarried to another woman on 11.12.16.
(2.) The facts in short are these. Appellant was married to respondent on 18.01.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, appellant started living in her matrimonial home along with the family members of the respondent. The respondent used to stay with his mother who is a cancer patient. According to the respondent, appellant started behaving in an awkward manner after the 'Jurun' itself. After the said function, appellant called the respondent over telephone and insulted him for gifting her low standard ornaments as she was expecting some platinum ornaments from him. Immediately after marriage, she started behaving in the cruel manner with the respondent as well as his mother and sister. She frequently said that she was compelled to marry the respondent by her father and used to taunt him saying that he was a dark complexion man. She clearly stated to the respondent that she does not wish to be called as a daughter-in-law and she was comfortable with her western clothing only. She also refused to wake up early in morning and to do household works and even denied adhering to the traditions of the Society. Once she pushed her mother-in-law causing injuries to her, for which she had to take some treatment. When the respondent tried to make her understand the ways of the family and requested her to be humble, she used to make a hue and cry and also insulted and physically assaulted him. She had bitten him on his neck and hand once and also entered the room of his elder sister at night, who came to look after their sick mother, and tried to strangulate her. When the other members of the family heard the commotion, they came for rescue of his sister. The appellant also used to make hue and cry on petty issues and did not miss any opportunity to humiliate him and his family members. She repeatedly used to say that she is more educated than any other member of the family of the respondent. Once, when his sister was suffering from viral fever and he went to her room at night to give medicine, appellant heard her speaking over telephone to someone, on the next morning that the respondent has illicit relation with his own sister. On 30.01.2010, appellant also created a scene by shouting filthy language and biting the respondent on his neck and left arm for which he had to take treatment in the hospital. The respondent informed about odd behaviour of the appellant to her father, but he did not take any interest in addressing the same. Respondent also heard from reliable sources that the appellant tried to commit suicide prior to his marriage by throwing herself into a well but she did not die as there was no sufficient water in that well. He also heard that she often used to quarrel with her father on small issues. When the matter was informed to her father, instead of addressing the same, he went to the Mahila Samiti as well as to the local police station and lodged complaint against the respondent. Not only this, he also went to the Protection Officer under of Domestic Violence alleging domestic violence to the appellant and as such, it became impossible for the respondent to stay with her anymore and hence, he filed the suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
(3.) Appellant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her. She pleaded that after marriage, she has been trying her level best to prove herself as the best daughter-in-law. She vehemently denied that she treated the respondent as well as her mother-in-law with cruelty and abused them with un-parliamentary words. She stated that she had been very kind and gentle to her mother-in-law and always tried to upheld and adhere to the traditional and customary values. She also pleaded that their marriage was duly consummated in the first night itself and she tried to perform all her duties with utmost dedication and rather it is the respondent, who filed a case against her father in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, under Sections 120 B/406/420/445/441 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, her father used to avoid meeting the respondent. So far her mental condition is concerned, she pleaded that she is highly qualified with various educational degrees to her credit and she has been presently working as a Liberian-cum-Assistant Teacher in Noonmati Public School without any blemish. She also pleaded that she has been staying in her matrimonial home and she has not deserted the respondent and as such she prayed for dismissal of the suit.;

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