Sri Rupak Banik vs Smt. Suparna Paul
2022 Latest Caselaw 1015 Tri

                                                         Page 1 of 7



                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                        MAT APP NO.04 OF 2021

Sri Rupak Banik,
S/o- Sri Ratan Banik, P.O- Sovapur,
Rabindra Nagar, P.O.- Rabindranagar,
P.S.- Sonamura, PIN-799131, District- Sepahijala Tripura.

                                       ---- Appellant(s).
                              Versus
Smt. Suparna Paul,
D/o- Sri Naresh Paul,
R/o- Gandhinagar, Near School Tilla,
P.O- Rabindra Nagar, P.S. Sonamura,
PIN-799131, District- Sepahijala Tripura.
                                    -----Respondent(s).

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Bhowmik, Advocate.

Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, Advocate.

Date of hearing              : 01.12.2022.

Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order             : 06.12.2022.

Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.


        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY JUDGMENT & ORDER CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)

This is an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the

Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the Judgment dated

16.03.2021 passed in T.S.(Null) 1 of 2020 by the learned

Judge, Family Court, Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura whereby

the learned Court below declared the marriage between the

appellant and the respondent dated 10.08.2019 as null and

void.

2. The fact of the case, in brief, according to the

appellant-Sri Rupak Banik is that, the respondent herein, Smt.

Suparna Paul is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and

their marriage was solemnized at the house of Nidhan Paul of

village-Office tilla, under Bishalgarh P.S. on 10th August 2019

according to Hindu religion, Vedic rites and ceremonies. The

marriage declaration was done between them on 6th

September 2019 before the Notary Public at Bishalgarh. After

that, a 'certificate of marriage' bearing No.148 SDM/BLG/JDL

was also issued on 13.09.2019 in favour of them.

After marriage, the respondent-wife herein always

insisted upon the appellant that he should live apart from the

other members of his family, and the respondent used to

detest not only the parents of the appellant but also the other

members of the family. The appellant herein is a driver by

profession at the time of marriage and as he was not having a

satisfactory job, the respondent-wife turned up against the

appellant and deserted him without sufficient reason and filed

a petition before the learned Family Court, Sepahijala,

Sonamura under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

to declare the marriage between the appellant and the

respondent as a nullity. The said petition was registered as

T.S.(Null) 01 of 2020.

3. The respondent-wife herein as petitioner in that

petition raised the ground that she did not know any Nidhan

Paul nor she visited the house of Nidhan Paul on 10.08.2019.

Therefore, the question of marriage does not arise. The

respondent further submitted that in the notice dated

19.11.2019, the appellant herein did not aver that 'Saptapadi'

was made before the sacred fire as per Hindu Rites and

Customs. The respondent further averred that the signature of

the respondent was taken on a blank paper and as such

denied the notarial affidavit. The respondent also stated that

the joint photograph was taken without letting the respondent

herein know the purpose of such photograph. The respondent

further stated that the respondent on a bonafide belief went

to the office of the SDM, Bishalgarh and under the pressure of

the appellant herein was compelled to state before the SDM,

Bishalgarh regarding the marriage.

4. The appellant herein contested the suit by filing a

written statement and in that written statement he stated as

mentioned herein-above.

5. The learned Court below framed the following

issues:-

"i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?

ii) Whether there is any cause of action for filing the suit?

iii) Whether the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is a voidable marriage?

iv) Whether any valid marriage was solemnized in between the petitioner and the respondent at any point of time as per Hindu rites and customs?

v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the alleged marriage dated 10.08.2019 in between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void?

vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the Marriage certificate bearing No.148 SDM/BLG/JDL, issued by the SDM, Bishalgarh is illegal, void and inoperative?

vii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the decree, as prayed for?

viii) Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief/relieves?"

6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the

evidence on record, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and

decree dated 16.03.2021 held that the marriage between the

appellant and the respondent is voidable and as such declared

the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as

null and void.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred this

instant appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment dated

16.03.2021 passed in T.S.(Null)1 of 2020 by the learned

judge, Family Court Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura.

8. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant herein submitted before this Court that the appellant

and respondent had known each other since long before

marriage and after they became intimate, they decided to

marry each other according to their own will. Both parties

freely consented to the solemnization of marriage with full

knowledge of the nature of the ceremony. The appellant had

adduced the necessary documentary evidence and the Court

below failed to consider the same. Stating thus, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant herein urged to allow this

appeal.

9. Mr. R. Datta, learned amicus curiae appearing for the

respondent herein vehemently opposed the said submission of

the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and urged this

Court to uphold the impugned judgment and order dated

16.03.2021.

10. Heard learned counsel appearing for both parties and

perused the evidence on record.

11. When the respondent-wife is not interested to stay

with the appellant-husband, this Court cannot force the

respondent-wife to stay with the appellant-husband.

Moreover, according to the appellant, their marriage was

solemnized in the house of Nidhan Paul, but said Nidhan Paul

was not cited as a witness by the appellant herein before the

Court below. The appellant-husband had not produced either

the Notary Officer or the Notary Register Book or any

representative from the Notary Office Bishalgarh or any

identifying Advocate or any witness before the Court below in

support of the alleged 'Marriage Declaration Certificate'. The

respondent had also not produced either the SDM, Bishalgarh

or any of his authorized representatives or the Marriage

Registration Book of the Bishalgarh, SDM Office in the case

before the Court below to support the alleged 'Certificate of

Marriage'. Even the attesting witness had not been examined

by the appellant-husband before the Court below. Thus this

Court feels that no case has been made out by the appellant

herein

12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of

the opinion that the judgment dated 16.03.2021 as passed by

the Court below is just and proper and needs no interference,

and the same is upheld. Accordingly, this instant appeal is

dismissed.

13. This Court appreciates the assistance of

learned amicus curiae and directs the State Legal Services

Authority to pay the fees as admissible to Mr. R. Datta,

learned amicus curiae as per the procedure.

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

stands closed.

           JUDGE                   CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)




suhanjit