Sri Tapan Chandra Deb vs Smti. Anita Deb Alias Aruna
2023 Latest Caselaw 49 Tri

                              Page 1 of 5



                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                           F.A. No.06 of 2022
Sri Tapan Chandra Deb, aged 63 years, son of late Nabin Chandra Deb,
resident of Ghilatali Bazar, Bhakta Das Para, P.O. Ghilatali Bazar,
Kalyanpur, District- Khowai Tripura.
                                                  ......Appellant(s)
                              VERSUS
Smti. Anita Deb alias Aruna, wife of Sri Tapan Chandra Deb, daughter of
late Rasaraj Deb, resident of West Joynagar, Dashamighat, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura.
                                                   ......Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)        : Mr. P.K. Dhar, Sr. Advocate,
                          Ms. Papiya Goswami, Advocate,
                          Mr. Rahul Debnath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)       : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
                          Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.

           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

           Date of hearing & judgment : 11th January, 2023.

                    JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard M. P.K. Dhar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.

Papiya Goswami and Mr. Rahul Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-husband and also heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior

counsel assisted by Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-wife.

[2] The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband

under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to challenge the impugned

judgment dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family

Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit (Divorce) No.302 of 2021

wherein the learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the application filed by

the appellant to obtain a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and

desertion.

[3] The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage of the

petitioner was solemnized with the respondent in the month of February,

1980 as per Hindu rites and Customs in the house of the respondent's father

at Joynagar, Agartala. After marriage the petitioner stated to have started

their conjugal life together and lived as husband and wife peacefully in his

house for few months and the respondent also gave birth to a daughter, who

is already married. The petitioner stated that after few months of their

marriage, the respondent started quarreling with him on several occasions

and even assaulted him without any cogent reasons. It was alleged that the

respondent did not obey any request of the petitioner and used to abuse him

in slang languages. It was also alleged that the respondent neglected the

petitioner in aspects of their conjugal life and even deprived from having

sexual relationship with her after delivery of their daughter. It was stated

that since 1980, the respondent had started to live at her father's house at

West Joynagar, Agartala. The petitioner stated that he had taken several

attempts to take the respondent back to him to Ghilatali but she did not pay

any heed and thus, he could not settle their dispute amicably. It was further

stated that the respondent gave her opinion that he may remarry since she

was unwilling to resume her conjugal life with him.

[4] The appellant initially filed a title suit being numbered as

T.S(Divorce) 302 of 2021 before the Additional Judge, Family Court,

Agartala, West Tripura and sought for a decree of divorce by way of

dissolution of marriage against his wife. To substantiate his claims and

contentions, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and one of his

neighbours namely Ajit Shil as P.W.2. Despite several efforts, notice could

not be served upon the respondent-wife and the case was proceeded ex

parte against the respondent and no formal issues were framed. However,

the learned Family Judge for the purpose of discussion and determination,

had taken up the following points for consideration :

(i) Whether both the parties to this case are legally married to each other?

(ii) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty at various point of their conjugal life?

(iii) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner since June, 1980 without any cogent reason and has been staying away from him?

(iv) Whether the petitioner-husband is entitled to get a decree of divorce on the grounds, as prayed for ?

[5] The learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala after considering

the pleadings and documents on record found that the petitioner was at

fault as he forwarded a concocted story against the respondent for ulterior

benefit. Both the points were decided against the petitioner and the learned

Judge further observed that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as

claimed by him in the present case and rejected the application filed by the

petitioner. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :

"In the result, it is here ordered that the application filed by the petitioner, Sri Tapan Chandra Deb against the respondent, Smt. Anita Deb @ Aruna for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion U/S-13(1) (i-a)/(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is hereby rejected. The petitioiner is found not entitled to get any other relief, if claimed. Prepare the decree accordingly in terms of the above findings. With the above findings and observation, the instant case is hereby dismissed and disposed of without contest."

[6] Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, the

petitioner filed the present appeal to obtain a decree of divorce under

Section 13(1) (i-a)/(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

[7] Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior counsel for the appellant

submits that the learned trial Judge without appreciating the pleadings and

evidence on record passed ex parte judgment which is perverse and

erroneous. Accordingly, he proposed to remand the matter back to the trial

Court for deciding the matter afresh by setting aside the impugned

judgment dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family

Court, Agartala in Title Suit (Divorce) No.302 of 2021. Mr. P. Roy

Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has fairly

supported the proposal given by the learned senior counsel for the

appellant.

[8] After hearing the learned counsel for both parties and also

considering the proposal advanced, we are of the opinion that the learned

Judge, Family Court has not appreciated the facts of the case and could

have more vigilant while passing the order, more so when the matter

pertains to senior citizens who are at fag end of their life and are facing lis

against each other for divorce. This Court feels that better wisdom would

prevail in between them. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the

judgment dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family

Court, Agartala in Title Suit (Divorce) No.302 of 2021 is set aside and the

same is remanded back to the court below for deciding the matter afresh.

The court below may decide the matter in its entirety.

[9] The appeal is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid

terms.

Send down the lower court records forthwith.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(ARINDAM LODH), J                        CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)




Pulak/Dipesh