Tripura High Court
Smt. Rupali Paul (Datta) vs Sri Sukanta Datta on 18 August, 2022
Page - 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAT. App. 04 of 2022
Smt. Rupali Paul (Datta),
Daughter of Pranesh Ch. Paul, wife of Sri Sukanta Datta, resident of
Fatikroy, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Trippura.
----- Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Sukanta Datta,
Son of Sri Sishir Datta, resident of West Mashli, P.S. Manu, District-Dhalai
Tripura.
----- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pulak Saha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debajit Biswas, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 11th August, 2022.
Date of Pronouncement : 18th August, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting : NO
_B_E_F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[Per T. Amarnath Goud], J
Heard Mr. Pulak Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
as well as Mr. D. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
[2] This is an appeal filed under section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
1984. It arises from the judgment dated 17.01.2020 delivered in Title Suit
MAT App. No.04 of 2022
Page - 2 of 6
(Divorce) 50 of 2018 by the Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti Judicial
District dissolving the marriage between the appellant and his wife.
[3] Brief fact of the case is as under:
Marriage between the respondent husband and appellant wife was
solemnized in the year 2009 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. In their wedlock,
a daughter namely, Rima Datta was born. The respondent is a contractual
teacher serving under the Department of Education. The appellant stated in her
petition that after five months of peaceful conjugal life, her respondent husband
and his parents started making illegal demand of dowry to which she denied
and as a result she was subjected to torture by her respondent husband and his
parents. This apart, she was often blamed for her dark complexion and
ugliness. The appellant wife was also subjected to torture by her respondent
husband at the administration of his parents and relatives for giving birth to a
female child. The appellant wife for the welfare of her and her daughter kept
silent. One day in March, 2014, husband of the appellant after consuming
alcohol tortured her and for this reason she took shelter in her parental house
to save her life and her minor child. After 4/5 days, the appellant wife returned
to her matrimonial home with her brother and sister-in-law. The appellant
thereafter started living in a rented house at Kumarghat believing her husband
who promised to maintain her and their child and visit therein once or thrice a
week. But, the respondent husband neither bear the expenses for maintenance
nor he visited the rented house where his appellant wife and their child were
MAT App. No.04 of 2022
Page - 3 of 6
residing. Failing to bear the day to day expenses, the appellant wife was
compelled to live in her matrimonial home. Lastly, on 24.06.2018, husband of
the appellant wife brutally tortured her and ousted her and their child. In order
to save the lives of her and her daughter, the appellant took shelter in the
house of her brothers.
[4] The appellant filed an FIR in Manu Police station which was
registered as Manu P.S. case No.34 of 2018 to which the police subsequently
filed charge sheet against the respondent husband.
[5] The respondent husband then filed an application before the Family
Court, Unakoti Judicial District with a prayer for granting divorce on the ground
of cruelty.
[6] The trial court had taken initiative for reconciliation of their dispute.
When the efforts failed, the learned Family Judge took up the case for trial and
framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the petition is maintainable in its present form and
nature.
(ii) Whether the husband-petitioner Sri Sukanta Datta was subjected
to cruelty by the wife-respondent Smt. Rupali Paul?
(iii) Whether in the Month of June, 2016 the respondent had deserted
the petitioner?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty and desertion?
(v) Any other relief/reliefs parties are entitled to?
MAT App. No.04 of 2022
Page - 4 of 6
[7] In the course of trial, the husband examined himself as PW-1 and
two other witnesses namely, Smt, Krishna Datta and Sri Balaram Deb as PW-2
and PW-3 respectively. The wife on the other hand examined herself as DW-1
and another witness namely, Sri Prasenjit Paul as DW-2.
[8] On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held that the
respondent-wife (appellant herein) has assaulted the petitioner (respondent
herein) and his mother and moreover subsequent conduct of the parties after
filing of the case was also not healthy. In this view of the matter, the trial court
granted divorce in favour of the petitioner husband observing as under:
"In the result, the marriage between the petitioner Sri Sukanta
Datta and respondent Smt. Rupali Paul is hereby dissolved by a
decree of divorce with effect from today the 17th January, 2020.
The petitioner did not claim for alimony or maintenance and
hence, no order is made in that regard. Without prejudice to her
rights to claim the same later on.
The case is disposed of on contest."
[9] Being aggrieved, appellant-wife has challenged the judgment and
order dated 17.01.2020. Hence, this appeal.
[10] Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
argued that seven months after the decree of divorce was granted by the
Family Court, the respondent-husband has married another lady. Learned
counsel contends that the respondent-husband is paying maintenance @
Rs.7,000/- per month to his wife for maintaining herself and her child which is
MAT App. No.04 of 2022
Page - 5 of 6
not sufficient for maintenance of the appellant-wife and better upbringing of
her child. In this regard, learned counsel has urged this Court for maintenance
allowance @ Rs.20,000/- for the appellant wife and her child.
[11] From the other side, Mr. D. Biswas, learned counsel contended that
the respondent-husband is a contractual teacher who earns around Rs.28,000/-
per month and he has his family consisting of his present wife and ailing
parents. Being the sole earning member of the family, it would be difficult for
him to pay the amount of maintenance allowance as claimed by the appellant-
wife.
[12] We have perused the entire record and considered the submissions
of learned counsel representing the parties.
[13] Pleadings are completed. Both the parties are present at the time
of hearing.
[14] Presently, the respondent-husband is paying Rs.7,000/- per month
as maintenance-allowance to the appellant-wife and by way of monthly
maintenance- allowance she demanded Rs.20,000/- for permanent settlement.
The respondent-husband expressed his inability to pay the said amount as
demanded by the appellant-wife as he has his family consisting of his present
wife and ailing parents and he further contended that he is drawing around
Rs.28,000/- per month towards his salary as a contractual teacher. The
MAT App. No.04 of 2022
Page - 6 of 6
appellant contended that the respondent-husband apart from drawing salary as
a teacher, he is having additional source of income from private tuition and
therefore, she prayed to grant reasonable compensation from her husband.
[15] Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the maintenance-
allowance be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife Rupali Paul
(Datta) and Rs.5,000/- to daughter Rima Datta.
[16] Thus, the maintenance-allowance be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per
month to the appellant-wife and Rs.5,000/- towards daughter. The respondent-
husband shall pay the said amount regularly on monthly basis. Liberty is given
to the appellant wife and her daughter for making appropriate application
before the concerned Court seeking enhancement in view of the changed
circumstances, if any, in future.
[17] In view of the above directions, the matter stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (T. AMARNATH GOUD), J
Sabyasachi G.
MAT App. No.04 of 2022
