SHRI HRISHIKESH TALUKDAR Vs. SMTI PURABI BAISHYA
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Shri Hrishikesh Talukdar
Smti Purabi Baishya
Click here to view full judgement.
AJIT SINGH,C.J. -
(1.) This appeal by the husband - Hrishikesh Talukdar - is against the judgment and order dated 20.4.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in F.C.(Civil) Case No. 686/2009 dismissing his suit for divorce filed against his wife-Smti Purabi Baishya.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are these. The appellant had a love affair with the respondent and when he was studying in the final year of MBBS in the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, he married the respondent in Kamakhya Temple on 14/9/2004. Since, at the time he had no source of income, the couple started living in the house of adoptive father of the respondent. According to the appellant, after staying with him for about a week, the respondent suddenly went to her father's house at Barpeta and started living with her father who was transferred to Barpeta from Guwahati. The appellant then moved to his Hostel No. 4 in the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital and stayed there till 26/1/2006. It is alleged that the respondent used to suspect him for having an extra-marital affair and in spite of his repeated endeavour to settle the differences and remove her doubts, she did not agree to live with him. In the meantime, appellant also left for Karnataka to pursue further studies and taking advantage of his absence, the respondent along with her father and some other persons approached the parents of the appellant and threatened them with dire consequences. The father of the appellant then lodged a first information report at the Dispur Police Station on 7/3/2006. As a retaliatory measure, the adoptive father of the respondent filed a first information report on 07/01/2007 against the appellant's family and the respondent after addressing a press conference also through various newspapers circulated false and baseless allegations against his family on 9/1/2007. In those newspaper reports and press conference rampant allegations were made that the respondent was treated with cruelty and her life was also threatened by the appellant and as such, aspersions were cast on the appellant as well as his family members, which were proved to be quite defamatory. Besides, after filing of the suit for divorce respondent and some persons assaulted him openly in public when he went to an internet cafe, due to which he sustained injuries on his person apart from being publicly humiliated. A First Information Report was also lodged about this incident by his father on 27.1.2010 and the same was duly registered. Such type of behaviour of the respondent, caused much hardship and prejudice to the appellant as well as his family members, resulting such a situation that he could not live with the respondent any further and as such, the appellant filed the suit for divorce as aforesaid.
(3.) The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter-alia that after marriage both started living in the house of her father as the appellant had no income at the point of time, and it is her adoptive father, who always supported the appellant by providing monetary help for meeting day-to-day expenses as well as for his further studies outside Assam. According to her, her adoptive father bore the expenses for his travel by flight to New Delhi, where he intended to participate in some coaching classes. She also alleged that the appellant used to demand dowry from her, such as a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing plot of land, a car, home theatre, television set, Italian furniture and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, and her adoptive father was called for discussion in this regard. It is further alleged that the adoptive father of the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant for taking coaching classes in New Delhi. The appellant on the other hand, did not take her to the matrimonial home at the instigation of his family members and the brother-in-law of the respondent also went to the house of the appellant on many occasions to settle the differences. But the family members of the appellant did not give any information about the whereabouts of the appellant and never tried to settle the disputes. The respondent also contended that when she got pregnant, the appellant forcefully made her abort the child on 10/02/2005 and as such she was treated with utmost cruelty. Finding no other alternative, she approached the Axom Poriyal Paramarkhadan Kendra and Axom Pradeshik Mahila Samity at Guwahati. According to her, she did hold the press conference only to know the whereabouts of the appellant. She also stated that she does not wish to break the marriage and is still willing to stay with the appellant and as such, prayed for dismissal of the suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.