Rupam Nath vs Piya Nath
2026 Latest Caselaw 2900 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Rupam Nath vs Piya Nath on 30 March, 2026

Author: M. Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                            Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010209162023




                                                                   undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Mat.App./59/2023

            RUPAM NATH
            S/O SRI HARI BHUSAN NATH,
            R/O 6TH A.P BN KATHAL, VILL.- JAIFORPUR, P.S.- SILCHAR, P.O.-
            JAIFORPUR, DIST.- CACHAR (ASSAM).



            VERSUS

            PIYA NATH
            D/O SRI DHARANI NATH,
            VILL.- VERNERPUR, P.O.- VERNERPUR TEA ESTATE, P.S.- LALA, DIST.-
            HAILAKANDI (ASSAM).



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR K L GUPTA, MR KRISHNANGSHU B

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S K GHOSH, MS F AHMED




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

                                          ORDER

30.03.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant-husband. Also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent-wife.

Page No.# 2/7

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Family Court in F.C. (Civil) Case No.67/2015, dismissing the appellant husband's petition for grant of a Divorce Decree under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. The appellant/husband had filed a petition before the learned Family Court, praying for dissolution of their marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), i.e., on grounds of cruelty and under Section 13(1)(ib) on grounds of desertion.

4. The learned Family Court, vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 13/07/2023, dismissed the case of the appellant-husband, i.e., F.C. (Civil) Case No.67/2015, by holding that in terms of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant-husband was to have been deserted by the respondent-wife for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce.

5. The appellant and the respondent herein had married on 18/07/2013 and the respondent-wife and her child had left the house of the appellant on 04/12/2014. However, the appellant's petition for divorce had been filed on 13/03/2015. As such, the prayer for divorce on grounds of desertion could not fall within the four corners of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act.

6. With regard to the prayer of the appellant-husband for divorce on grounds of cruelty, the learned Family Court rejected the said prayer, by holding that no case of cruelty had been made out by the appellant in terms of Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal, praying for Page No.# 3/7

setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 13/07/2023, passed by the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar at Silchar in F.C. (Civil) Case No.67/2015.

8. The appellant's counsel, at the outset, submits that he has not made any challenge to the rejection of the appellant's prayer for divorce on grounds of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, inasmuch as, the condition precedent for making a claim for divorce under the said provision does not exist. On the other hand, the rejection of the appellant's prayer for divorce on grounds of cruelty is completely erroneous, as cruelty on the part of the respondent-wife against the appellant-husband, has been clearly made out in the evidence led by the appellant.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and the respondent married on 18/07/2013 and a child was born to them on 02/11/2014. However, the respondent left the house of the appellant's parents on 04/12/2014 and refused to come back to the matrimonial home. This was due to the reason that the respondent-wife wanted to live separately from the appellant's parents in another house.

10. The appellant's counsel submits that the continued harassment of the appellant-husband by the respondent-wife to live in a separate house, away from the appellant's parents, amounted to mental cruelty. He submits that the respondent-wife even attempted to commit suicide, to force the appellant to leave his parental/maternal house and live separately with her. He submits that the suicide attempt by the respondent had been done before the younger brother of the appellant, who saw the entire incident.

Page No.# 4/7

11. The appellant's counsel submits that the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home on a false accusation that the appellant and his family members were torturing her. He submits that there is no proof of the same. In fact, it is the respondent-wife, who has been torturing the appellant with false claims. In this regard, he submits that the respondent-wife had filed Misc. Case No.2/2019 before the Court of learned C.J.M. Hailakandi, which was disposed of, by granting maintenance to the respondent-wife.

12. Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that no grounds of cruelty on the part of the respondent-wife, has been made out by the appellant. In fact, the respondent-wife was driven out from the matrimonial home, due to being tortured by her father-in-law and mother-in-law. He also submits that the respondent-wife had to move out of the matrimonial home, as there was no help forthcoming from her in laws, in looking after the respondent- wife and her child at the initial stage of child birth. He submits that though the respondent is willing to come back to the matrimonial home, as can be seen from the evidence of PW-3, the appellant and his parents have not made any attempt to take back the respondent to her matrimonial home. He also submits that the allegation that the respondent had tried to commit suicide is a false allegation and the only person who could have proved the same as per the stand taken by the appellant, was the younger brother of the appellant, who had seen it. However, the younger brother of the appellant has not been made a witness before the Court of learned Family Court by the appellant, to prove the allegation that the respondent wife tried to commit suicide.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the domestic violence case that had been filed by the respondent-wife was initially registered as Page No.# 5/7

MR(DV) Case No.67/2015 and the same was subsequently registered as Misc. Case No.2/2019. He submits that the said DV case had been filed by the respondent-wife only after the filing of the divorce case by the appellant.

14. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

15. With regard to the stand of the appellant husband that the respondent wife had tried to commit suicide, we find there is no proof of the same as the alleged eyewitness to the incident, i.e. the younger brother of the appellant husband has not been produced as a witness before the learned Family Court, to prove the said allegation.

16. The evidence of PW-3 is to the effect that a bichar was held, wherein he stated that the appellant and the mother-in-law had refused to take back the respondent-wife. This bichar had been held on 28.12.2014, as can be seen from the complaint filed by the appellant husband before the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar. It is also seen from evidence of PW-3 (brother- in-law of the appellant husband) that the respondent wife was always wanting to live with her husband and his family members. However, the appellant and his mother were refusing to take her back.

17. On going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, we find that the prayer of the appellant for granting him a Decree of Divorce on grounds of cruelty is reflected in later part of paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment and order, where it has been stated as follows :

"........It is the case of the petitioner that soon after their marriage it was noticed that the respondent is arrogant in nature and would not cooperate with his other family members and insisted him to live separately. There is no description of event by the P.Ws as to what incident took place for Page No.# 6/7

arrogance or non-cooperation of the respondent. There is also no evidence on record as to how many times the respondent insisted him to live separately from his other family members. The petitioner is to establish in record that the acts or omissions of the respondent was such that it must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of the respondent the petitioner party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer. Unfortunately there is no description of events by the P.Ws. which establishes in record that the act or omission of the respondent is such that it would amount to mental cruelty and would give an impression to the petitioner that he cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent. Blanket statements by the P.Ws that the respondent was arrogant, non-cooperative and pressurised the P.W-1 to live separately will not by itself sufficient to prove mental cruelty on the part of the respondent. On the other hand the respondent in her defence and evidences of the D.Ws. took the defence that soon after her marriage the petitioner and his family members demanded money and on her refusal to meet demand for dowry she was subjected to physical and mental torture and ultimately driving out her and her child from their matrimonial home. It is also found proved in record from the judgment Ext-B that the respondent was a victim Domestic Violence while she was in her matrimonial house and necessary relief admissible under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 was provided to her. Where it is proved in record from the Ext-B judgment that the respondent herein is a victim is a victim of Domestic Violence while she was in her matrimonial house, it cannot be believed that the petitioner would subject the petitioner to mental cruelty. So the issue No III is - decided in the negative."

18. On considering the reason given by the learned Family Court for rejecting the appellant's prayer for grant of divorce on grounds of cruelty and on perusing the evidence adduced by the parties, we find no ground to take a different view Page No.# 7/7

than the finding and view expressed by the learned Family Court.

19. As we do not find any ground of cruelty on the part of the respondent wife being established vis-a-vis the appellant husband, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

20. On considering the evidence of the parties and the fact that the respondent wife has always taken a consistent stand that she wanted to live with her husband, which has not possible due to the appellant and his mother not taking back the respondent wife, it appears that it is actually the husband, who has committed cruelty on the respondent wife. The husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong doing and illegal action, by preventing the wife from returning to the matrimonial home and as such, we do not find any infirmity on the part of the learned Family Court denying the prayer of the appellant husband, for grant of a Divorce Decree.

21. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

22. Send back the TCR.

                      JUDGE                                         JUDGE




Comparing Assistant