Sri Himadri Sekhar Roy vs Smt. Bulti Saha
2022 Latest Caselaw 794 Tri

                             HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                    AGARTALA
                                  F.A.01 of 2021

         Sri Himadri Sekhar Roy,
         son of late Himangshu Kumar Roy,
         resident of Dhaleswar Road No.17,
         P.O. Dhaleswar-799007, P.S. East Agartala,
         District - West Tripura
                                                             .......... Appellant(s)

                                         Versus

         Smt. Bulti Saha,
         wife of Sri Himadri Sekhar Roy,
         daughter of Sri Anath Bandhu Saha,
         resident of Purba Pratapgarh (near Kalibari & BBC),
         P.O. East Pratapgarh-799004, P.S. East Agartala,
         District - West Tripura

                                                          .......... Respondent(s)

         For Appellant(s)            :    Mr. A. Sengupta, Adv.
         For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
         Date of Hearing             :    18.08.2022
         Date of Judgment & Order    :    25.08.2022
         Whether fit for reporting   :    NO


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

                                  Judgment & Order

[T. Amarnath Goud, J]

This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,

1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment

dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West

Tripura in Case No.T.S. (Divorce) 67 of 2019 whereby the petition filed by the

petitioner was dismissed.

2. The brief fact is that the appellant husband being the petitioner

filed a petition bearing No.T.S.(Divorce)67 of 2019 in the Court of the learned

Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala under clause (ia) of sub-section 1 of

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent-wife for

dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce.

3. The fact of the case as arrived in the divorce petition is that the

marriage of the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on

18.02.2017 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, the respondent

wife came to the house of the appellant husband to live with him as husband

and wife. The appellant is the only son of his mother Smt. Rekha Roy and he

has only one youngest sister, namely Reshmi Roy Banik who is also married and

having happy conjugal life and has been living at Dhaleswar road No.7, Agartala.

The father of the appellant namely Himangshu Kumar Roy had expired on

14.02.2016. The mother of the appellant is the owner of the matrimonial home.

The appellant is a clerical staff of ILS Hospital, Agartala. After marriage, the

respondent wife resided in her matrimonial home at Dhaleswar with the

appellant husband for 57 days, but within the said days, their marriage was not

consummated. According to the appellant husband, she did not allow him to any

physical relation with her and also did not allow him to cohabit with her. The

appellant husband kept no stone unturned to keep the respondent happy within

the said short period of 57 days. He celebrated her birthday on 12.04.2017 and

he also took her at Ramthakur Ashram and Agartala Airport to change the

mental state of the respondent wife.

4. After demise of the father of the appellant husband on

14.02.2016, the mother of the appellant has been leading her life in her own

way without making any sort of interference in the affairs of her son and his

wife. She rather accepted the respondent wife with affection of mother in her

family but the respondent made allegations to relatives and others that the

mother of the appellant was suffering from mental disorder for long period and

it was not possible on her part to reside with her under the same roof. The

appellant husband tried to convince the respondent wife saying that her

allegations were not correct. The respondent wife on many occasions behaved

rudely abusing the appellant and his mother in the coarsest and most insulting

language.

5. After Bengali New Year 1424 BS, they planned to visit the house

of the father of the respondent wife on 17.04.2017 evening but on that date, the

respondent wife without informing anything to the appellant husband left her

matrimonial home at 10.30 am when the appellant husband was busy in his

working place at ILS Hospital, Agartala and since that date, the respondent wife

had been residing in the house of her father. The appellant has narrated the

facts of mental cruelty meted out to him by the respondent wife and the

appellant has never condoned any of the act of mental cruelty of the

respondent, and finally, the appellant prayed before the learned court to pass a

decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the

respondent on the ground of mental cruelty.

6. The trial Court had issued notice upon the respondent and on

receipt of the said notice, the respondent appeared and filed written objection

on 29.07.2019. As stated earlier, the respondent wife left the matrimonial home

and lived separately in her parental home.

7. On perusal of the written statement on 29.07.2019 the

respondent husband came to know that the plea of the respondent wife was

that after the marriage, the appellant husband had started torture upon her both

mentally and physically for demand of dowry. The respondent on several

occasion tried to restore her conjugal life with the appellant but all went in vain.

Several meetings were held in presence of the relatives of the respondent wife

to mitigate the dispute between them, but the appellant husband was reluctant

to lead his conjugal life with the respondent. Allegedly, the appellant assaulted

the respondent on the issue of household works and lastly in the year 2017, the

respondent under compelling circumstances had to leave her matrimonial home

due to severe torture of her husband. She prayed before the Court below to

dismiss the prayer of the appellant husband for fair ends of justice.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Court below has framed the

following issues for adjudication of the case :

ISSUES (I) Whether the instant suit is maintainable in its present form and nature ?

(II) Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent on various dates since after their marriage ?

(III) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree as prayed for ?

(IV) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to get ?

9. On appreciation of the evidence the trial court dismissed the suit

as the appellant husband failed to prove his case for obtaining a decree of

divorce on the ground of cruelty.

10. Both the parties are present with their respective counsel before

us. The appellant husband has fairly submitted that from the very beginning he

wanted to live with his wife peacefully but the respondent continued making wild

allegations against her mother-in-law stating that she was suffering from mental

disorder and it is not possible for her to stay with her mother-in-law under the

same roof. According to the appellant, her allegations are absolutely false and

unfounded. He has further stated that after marriage the respondent wife has

lived in her matrimonial home with him for 57 days but during that period, she

did not allow him to have any physical relationship with her. He tried his level

best to restore their conjugal life but his efforts did not work.

11. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

referred to the judgment in Vidhya Viswanathan versus Kartik

Balakrishnan reported in (2014) AIR SCW 5789 where it has been clearly

stated that refusal to have sexual intercourse for a considerable period by wife

amounts to mental cruelty. Husband is entitled to decree of divorce on this

ground.

12. To the query of the court, the respondent wife has sted that she

would need Rs.15,00,000/- as permanent alimony and Rs.5000/- as monthly

maintenance. In response, the appellant husband has fairly submitted that he is

a clerical staff in the ILS Hospital, Agartala and his monthly salary is Rs.20,000/-

per month after all deductions. It is not possible on his part to give such a huge

amount as permanent alimony. He has clearly stated that his mother is old and

ailing who needs his support. Apart from his personal needs, his is also taking

care of the needs of his mother including her medical expenses. Therefore, it is

not possible on his part to give such huge money. He asserts that he can give

upto Rs.3,00,000/- as permanent alimony and Rs.5000/- as monthly

maintenance allowance.

13. However, after discussion, the parties hereto have amicably

settled the amount of permanent alimony at Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.5000/- as

monthly maintenance allowance.

14. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant husband shall pay an

amount of Rs.4,00,000/- only towards permanent alimony and shall also pay an

amount of Rs.5000/- per month towards monthly maintenance.

15. With the above observation, the marriage between the parties

performed on 18.02.2017 stands dissolved and divorce is hereby granted. The

order passed by the lower court is set aside.

With the above observation, the present appeal is disposed of

JUDGE JUDGE

Sabyasachi B