Tripura High Court
Sri Parthajit Majumder vs Smt. Anita Rani Barman on 3 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
FA No.3 of 2019
Sri Parthajit Majumder,
son of Sri Ranjit Majumder,
resident of village Madhya Bharat
Chandra Nagar, P.O. Chittamara,
PIN:799155, P.S. Belonia,
District: South Tripura,
Presently residing at C/O Office of the
DIG, CISF Unit, Shastri Park, Present
Line, Pink-2, Sudhama Puri Barack,
near Moti Nagar, Metro Station, New
Delhi, PIN:110015
............ Appellant (s)
-Versus-
Smt. Anita Rani Barman,
daughter of Sri Rakhal Chandra Barman,
resident of village Kaiya Dhepa,
P.O. Kamthana, PIN:799 109
P.S. Bishalgarh, District: Sepahijala,
Presently residing at C/O Office of the
DIG, CISF Unit, DMRC, Ladies Wing,
Akshardham, New Delhi, PIN:110053
............ Respondent (s)
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, Adv.
For the Respondent (s) : Ms. S. Banik Deb, Adv.
Date of hearing & delivery : 03.12.2021
of Judgment & order
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]
Heard Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant as well as Ms. S. Banik Deb, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
[2] This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act 1984 from the judgment dated 04.09.2018 delivered in
Title Suit (Divorce) No.175 of 2016 by the Judge, Family Court,
Agartala, West Tripura whereby the petition for dissolution of
marriage subsisting between the parties as filed under Section
13(1)(iii)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 has been dismissed.
[3] In the judgment dated 04.09.2018, it has been observed
that the appellant has failed to establish that the respondent has
been suffering continuously for mental disorder of any kind or of
such category, based on which a decree of divorce can be passed.
That apart, it has been observed by the Judge, Family Court that the
respondent by filing the written statement has denied all such
allegations of her suffering from mental disorder. It would, as we
think, be better if a part of the observation is reproduced. It has
been observed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura as
follows for dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage:
"But on perusal of the entire evidence on record, I do not find
any material to support the claim of the petitioner that the
respondent has been suffering from any kind of mental disorder.
Mere allegation of the petitioner cannot suffice without
producing any document showing that the respondent has been
suffering from any kind of mental disorder since after her
marriage."
[4] On the rival pleadings, for purpose of adjudication of the
petition, the following points were determined by the Judge, Family
Court:
"(I) Whether the instant suit is maintainable in its present form
and nature?
(II) Whether the respondent has been suffering continuously and
intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and of such an
extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live
with the respondent?
(III) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce as
prayed for?"
[4] From appreciation of the records, it appears that the
appellant examined himself in support of the pleading that was
placed by the appellant. Even no medical expert has been adduced
in the proceeding at least to give credence to the said allegation. We
could have dismissed this appeal on the face of the evidence as
there is no evidence from the experts who are competent to
determine whether someone is suffering from mental disorder. That
apart, we find from the evidence of the appellant itself that the
respondent has been serving under the Central Industrial Security
Force (CISF, in short). If she was really suffering from any mental
disorder she would not have been allowed to continue in her service.
Even there is no whisper as regards that she has been declared
medically unfit by the said force. Certain unexpected conducts of the
respondent have been noticed by us, but we are unable to hold the
view that a woman who is serving in a force is expected to take all
care of child, her as is expected from housewife. An Allegation to
that extent therefore on the face of it, does not satisfy us to accept
an additional ground of cruelty.
It may be noted further that the solitary ground that has
been projected in the petition filed by the appellant is of mental
disorder of that category for which the appellant is not expected to
live in the marital relation with the respondent. Even there had been
no attempt to prove the cruelty by conduct and as such, when Mr.
Chakraborty, learned counsel made a modest attempt in the
alternative that even if the ground of mental disorder has not been
proved, but the appellant has proved cruelty as serious matrimonial
misconduct. Following the procedural law which is substantive in
nature, it is observed that the pleadings must be definite inasmuch
as the reliefs shall be based on such pleading so that the person who
is opposing it can contest or dispute such pleading specifically. No
ground of cruelty has made out in the entire petition. At this stage,
we are not inclined to allow that ground to be resorted to.
[5] Ms. S. Banik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has made an attempt to drawn our attention to some
financial transactions between the parties, but we are really
surprised as no formal application in the proceeding has been made
in this regard nor anything has been stated in the written statement
filed by the respondent before the Family Court.
[6] In view of that, if there is any claim against the appellant,
the respondent may pursue the remedy irrespective of what we have
observed in this proceeding. Having observed thus, as we do not find
any merit in this appeal, the appeal stands dismissed.
Draw the decree accordingly and thereafter send down
the records.
JUDGE JUDGE
Moumita
