Tripura High Court
Sri Dinesh Das vs Smti Urmila Das on 13 August, 2024
Author: T.Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Mat.App 1 of 2024
Sri Dinesh Das
------Appellant(s)
Versus
Smti Urmila Das
---Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. S Deb (Gupta), Advocate.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 13.08.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order (Oral)
T.Amarnath Goud, J
Heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also heard
Mrs S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
[2] This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against
the Judgment and decree dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court,
Ambassa, Dhalai Tripura in Title Suit (Divorce) 11 of 2021.
[3] The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the marriage of the petitioner and
the respondent was solemnized on 18.12.1999 at parental home of the respondent
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After that the petitioner and the respondent
started to live and cohabited at the house of the petitioner situated at North Singinala,
Maharani, Salema, Dhalai, Tripura. From 2002, the petitioner was an employee of the
Tripura State Rifles, posted at Saidabari under Kumarghat Sub-division. Out of their
wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent, one female child namely Kumari Sonia Das
was born on 30.12.2003. In the year 2004, the petitioner was transferred and posted at
Kanchanpur, North Tripura and from the very beginning of his service life, for luxurious
life of the respondent they were living at Kumarghat, North Tripura, in a rented house
with her girl child. From very beginning the petitioner has always tried to provide the
respondent a luxuries life but she was not satisfied with this. Since the petitioner was
TRS, he had to spend most of the night outside due to his duty and hence a gap was
created between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner tried his best to give
respondent as much time as he could by saving his duty but the respondent was not
satisfied.
[4] Being dissatisfied, the respondent herein started misbehaving with the
petitioner, the petitioner had to be physically and mentally ignored by the respondent, not
only that on that time the respondent used abusive language towards the petitioner as well
also disregarded by using negligence and unnecessarily suspicion.
[5] After hearing both sides, the learned Court below delivered the judgment
and observed as follows:
In the result, the petition for divorce filed by the petitioner husband is dismissed
being devoid of merit. Suit is having no specific cause of action. Petitioner-
husband failed to prove cruelty and desertion against his wife by convincing
evidence and so he is not entitled to get any order for dissolution of marriage.
[6] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned court
below, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
[7] It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the learned court below
has caused serious miscarriage of justice by not appreciating the evidence on record
properly as well as by misreading the documents as produced by the petitioner. It is
further contended by the counsel for the appellant that falsely implicating the appellant in
a criminal case under Section 498(A) of the IPC from which the appellant has been
acquitted for matter of evidence is itself a complete and sufficient proof of mental cruelty
for purpose of grant of decree of divorce.
[8] On the other side, Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta) learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-wife has vehemently opposed such statement and contended before this court
that the impugned order as passed by the learned court below is just and proper and
further prayed to dismiss the appeal.
[9] On perusal of the record, it appears to this court that the way the things
have been developed over the years and a clear distance has been created between the
parties, this Court does not hesitate to hold that their marriage cannot subsist under the
given circumstances. To solemnize a marriage irrespective of any religion, caste and
creed and subsisting that marriage in every thick and thin is a different matter altogether.
Here is the case where it is apparent that the respondent-wife is not all satisfied with
whatever the comforts has been extended to her since the first day of marriage. This court
has no hesitation to hold that a person who has faced the trial for the offence under
section 498A IPC and he has been acquitted of all the charges of offence under section
498A of IPC, alleged by wife against the husband, amounts to cruelty on the husband as
such the husband is entitled to a decree of a Divorce .The petitioner, being a TSR
personnel, has tried his best to provide whatever was required from time to time. Now,
this court is of the view that considering the future aspects of both the parties they should
live separately for the better mental and health condition. Keeping in view of the fact that
marriage has been broken down irretrievably, this court is not oblivious of the fact that
the respondent-wife and her daughter requires basic amenities even after the marriage is
dissolved.
[10] This Court is of the opinion that fixing permanent alimony of a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) only would be reasonable and the same is ordered.
The husband-appellant is to make the payment of permanent alimony to the respondent-
wife in equal installments within 2(two) months from today (i.e. on or before
13.10.2024). At the same time, the husband-respondent is to clear all arrears whatever, if
any, within a period of 3(three) months from today. Till the permanent alimony is paid in
full, the appellant-husband is to continue making payment of maintenance.
[11] With the above observation and direction, this present appeal stands
disposed of. Stay if any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.
B.Palit, J T. Amarnath Goud, J
Dipak
