Sri Pijush Kanti Das vs Smt. Priyanka Rani Das
2022 Latest Caselaw 731 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 11


                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                        MAT APP NO.10 OF 2021

      Sri Pijush Kanti Das,
      Son of Mrinal Kanti Das,
      Resident of Ramchera,
      P.S. Bishalgarh, District- Sepahijala,
      Tripura.
                                                 ......... Appellant(s)

                        Vs.

      Smt. Priyanka Rani Das,
      Wife of Sri Pijush Kanti Das,
      D/o Sri Dulal Chandra Das,
      Resident of Madhya Laxmibil,
      P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala,
      Tripura.

                                                 ......Respondent(s)

For the Appellant(s) : Ms. S. Debbarma, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.

      Date of hearing and delivery of
      Judgment & Order           : 04.08.2022.

      Whether fit for reporting     : YES/NO.

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

T. Amarnath Gond, J

This is an appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 19 of the Family Courts'

Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2021

passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura,

Agartala in case No.T.S. (Divorce) 385 of 2018, dismissing the

divorce petition filed by the appellant.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the

marriage between the appellant, Sri Pijush Kanti Das was

solemnized with the respondent Smt. Priyanka Rani Das on

18.02.2011, as per Hindu rites and customs after observing all

formalities of Hindu marriage in the house of the father of the

respondent at Madhya Laxmibil. After marriage, both the

appellant and the respondent started living together as

husband and wife, and from their wedlock, a son was born on

05.01.2012. It is alleged that after some days of marriage,

the appellant-husband noticed that the respondent-wife

started to frequent visit her parental home without any

permission of her parents-in-law. Knowing from his parents,

after inquiry, he tried to convince the respondent but she

started a quarrel with the appellant and told him that he is not

the man of her choice and before marriage she was engaged

with somebody. She also told that she is not interested to live

with the petitioner as husband and wife. She also stopped

doing her household work. It is further alleged that the

respondent also pressurized him to leave his parents and stay

in her parent's house as 'gharjamai' otherwise she would not

be able to continue her marital life with him. One day while

the appellant was on his duty at Agartala, his father-in-law

came to his residential home at Ramcheera and without the

consent of his parents took the respondent and her son to his

house at Madhya Laxmibil and kept her in that house without

any information to the appellant and his family members.

Hearing this, the appellant rushed to his in-laws' house and

requested her to come back but the respondent alleging some

false allegations against him refused to come back to her

matrimonial home. But somehow, the appellant convinced her

and brought back her to her matrimonial home. It is further

alleged that on 30.09.2012 while the appellant was on his

duty he came to know over the telephone from his father that

the respondent consumed poison and she was brought to the

Bishalgarh PHC by his parents and subsequently brought to

B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Hapania from Bishalgarh PHC for

better treatment. On the following day on 01.10.2012, the

father of the respondent lodged an FIR to Bishalarh P.S.,

against the appellant and his old-aged parents. The FIR was

registered as Bishalgarh P.S. Case No.207/2012 under Section

498A/34 of IPC. After that FIR, the petitioner and his mother

Smt. Jiban Rani Das was arrested and they were in custody

for a long time and subsequently released on bail. His father

was released on anticipatory bail. After completion of the trial,

the appellant and his parents were acquitted by the learned

Session Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, vide judgment dated

18.07.2018.

3. It is further submitted by the appellant that on

27.11.2012, the respondent filed an application under Section

125(1) of Cr.P.C. against the appellant before the learned

Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala for grant of

monthly maintenance. The learned Court was pleased enough

to grant Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance in favour of the

respondent. Subsequently, in the year 2014, the respondent

filed a case vide Misc. 440 of 2014 for enhancement of the

maintenance allowance which was accordingly enhanced at

Rs.6,500/- per month in favour of the respondent and her

son.

4. The appellant herein on many occasions tried to

reconcile with the respondent-wife but failed. Finding no other

alternative, the appellant filed an application under Section 9

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Judge,

Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala being case

No.T.S.(RCR)336 of 2013. During the pendency of the case,

the learned Court took several attempts for reconciliation but

due to adamancy and reluctant attitude of the respondent-

wife herein it failed. Thus the said application under Section 9

was dismissed by the learned Court.

5. It is the further case of the appellant that the

respondent had filed an application under Section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Judge, Family

Court, West Tripura, Agartala for a decree of divorce vide case

No.T.S.(Divorce)111 of 2014 which was accordingly dismissed

by the learned Court. Thereafter, in the year 2016, the

respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

against the appellant and his parents before the learned CJM,

West Tripura, Agartala being Case No.C.R.699 of 2014. On

18.02.2017, the said case was dismissed by the learned Court

challenging which, the respondent preferred an appeal under

Section 29 of the said Act before the learned Sessions Judge,

West Tripura, Agartala which was also dismissed by the

learned Court.

6. The appellant further submits that after filling the

first case in the year 2012, the appellant is living separately

from the respondent without any reasonable grounds and

excuse. The appellant tried his level best to live with the

respondent as husband and wife and lead a happy conjugal

life but the respondent willfully and without any reason

refused and neglected the appellant. The respondent filed

several cases against the appellant and his parents and

harassed them and they have suffered lot of mental agonies.

7. Finding no other alternative, the appellant had

preferred the petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage between

the appellant and the respondent as virtually the marital ties

exist and carried no value as it has been already broken.

8. On receipt of notice issued by the learned Judge,

Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala, the respondent has

appeared and has submitted a written objection denying all

the allegations made in the petition for divorce stating that

after a few years of their marriage, the respondent began to

face strange and suspicious behavior from the appellant. The

appellant used to say that he was not interested in the

marriage and being pressurized, he gave his consent to the

marriage. The respondent further stated that the appellant

used to come home regularly in an intoxicated stage and

behave rudely toward the respondent. He used abusive

language against her and sometimes he even raised his hand

in an attempt to torture her. The respondent further stated

that from the very beginning of the matrimonial life, the

appellant used to torture her on demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- for

the construction of a house. On nonfulfillment of the demand,

the respondent was tortured physically and mentally. The

respondent further stated that the mother of the appellant

always instigated him to increase the torture upon her to

bring dowry from her parent's house. Several attempts were

made by the father of the respondent to mitigate the dispute

but failed. The respondent further submitted that the

appellant and his family members had forced her to abort the

child because, according to them, the child was an illegitimate

one and when the respondent did not agree to abort; she was

inflicted with physical injury by the appellant. The respondent

further submitted that during the stay in the hospital for

delivery, she did not receive any help or sympathy from her

in-laws. After the birth of the child, the degree of torture

increased. After the birth of the child, the appellant again

demand Rs. 2,00,000/-(two lakhs) for purchasing a bike but

when the respondent expressed his inability, the appellant

with the instigation of the parents assaulted the respondent

by fist and blows. Thereafter, the matter was informed to the

panchayat and in the meeting held by the panchayat, the

appellant and her in-laws admitted their guilt and apologized

in presence of all persons. The respondent further stated that

due to mental and physical torture, she was compelled to take

shelter in her paternal house. The respondent further stated

that the parents and the relatives of the respondent took

several endeavours and held several meetings but due to the

adamant attitude of the appellant, no fruitful result could be

achieved. The respondent could not fulfill his illegal demand

and as such the respondent is deprived of the right of

cohabitation along with other conjugal rights. The respondent

further submitted that she had never demanded for moving to

any separate establishment and is very much eager to reside

with her husband and continue her marital life on the

premises of her matrimonial house.

9. After hearing the argument of both sides, the

learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura Agartala dismissed

the divorce petition vide T.S.(Divorce)385 of 2018 filed by the

appellant by the judgment dated 08.03.2021 holding that the

appellant has failed miserably to substantiate the facts for

obtaining the decree of divorce against the respondent.

10. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband filed

this instant appeal and prayed for the following reliefs:-

"i) Admit the Appeal;

ii) Call for the lower courts record;

iii) Issue notice upon the respondent;

iv. After hearing both the sides, set aside the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.T.S.(Divorce)385 of 2018, as mentioned

above and dissolve the marriage between the appellant and the respondent by a decree of divorce."

11.             Heard   Ms.   S.   Debbarma,      learned     counsel

appearing for the appellant-husband as            well   as   Ms .P.

Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

wife.

12. As per the order of this Court dated 28.07.2022,

both the parties are personally present before this Court today

along with their respective learned counsels. Both the parties

have agreed to divorce. Towards permanent alimony, the

petitioner-husband (Shri Pijush Kanti Das) has agreed to pay

a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) only along with the

remaining arrears to the respondent-wife (Smt. Priyanka

Rani Das) within 3(three) months from today to which the

respondent-wife has agreed. On receipt of the said permanent

alimony, the respondent-wife has agreed that she shall deposit

Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only to the account of the son

who is a minor till he attains his majority by way of a fixed

deposit in a Nationalized Bank.

13. The respondent-wife is at liberty to use the

remaining Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only for her

personal use.

14. The said agreement is made as consented by

both the parties, and the same shall constitute the part and

parcel of this order by way of an annexure. The said settlement

which has been signed by both the parties and their respective

learned counsels is reproduced herein below:-

"Both the parties are present personally before this Court today along with their respective learned counsels. Both the parties have agreed to divorce and towards permanent alimony. The husband (Shri Pijush Kanti Das) has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) only along with the remaining arrears to the wife (Smt. Priyanka Rani Das) within 3(three) months from today. On receipt of the said permanent alimony, the wife has agreed that she shall deposit Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only to the account of the son who is a minor till he attains his majority by way of a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank. The wife is at liberty to use the remaining Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) for her personal use."

15. Since both sides agreed for divorce and to put a

quietus to the litigation amongst the appellant-husband and

the respondent-wife, and not to protract the litigation, the

marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife

performed on 18.02.2011 is dissolved and the order dated

08.03.2021 of the Court below is set aside and divorce is

granted.

16. However, the decree of divorce will come to force

only after the appellant-husband deposits the said amount as

the permanent alimony to the respondent-wife. In the event, if

the respondent-husband is interested to have visitation rights

to his son, he is at liberty to take steps in accordance with the

law.

17. Registry shall prepare the divorce decree and the

same be issued.

18. With the above-mentioned terms, this instant

appeal is allowed.

Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also

stands closed.

Enclo:- Annexure.

                 JUDGE                          JUDGE




      suhanjit