Tripura High Court
Sri Dilip Chandra Das vs Smt. Chanchala Talukdar (Das) on 22 January, 2024
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAT App. No.08 of 2023
Sri Dilip Chandra Das
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Smt. Chanchala Talukdar (Das)
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.S. Roy, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Advocate.
Ms. S. Sarkar, Advocate.
Mr. R. Acharjee, Advocate.
MAT App. No.14 of 2023
Smt. Chanchala Talukdar (Das)
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sri Dilip Chandra Das
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Advocate.
Ms. S. Sarkar, Advocate.
Mr. R. Acharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Roy, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
_O_R_D_E_R_
22/01/2024
Both the appeals have arisen from the judgment dated 12.05.2023
passed by the Family Court, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in TS (Div) 21 of
2020 and consequent decree thereof whereby the marriage tie between the
parties were dissolved by a decree of divorce and the petitioner-husband Dilip
Chandra Das was directed to pay monthly maintenance @Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
five thousand) to the respondent-wife w.e.f. 01.05.2023.
[2] Prior to institution of TS (Div) 21 of 2020, the husband filed
another divorce proceedings vide No. TS (Divorce) 39 of 2016 in the Court of
the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar seeking divorce against the
wife on the ground of cruelty and also for her mixing with another gentleman
and for maintaining unrestricted lifestyle. Vide judgment dated 11.01.2019, the
District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar granted decree of judicial
separation in lieu of decree of divorce despite the fact that said Court was of the
opinion that cruelty towards husband by the wife was proved but still there was
some hope of repairing of their relationship.
[3] The petitioner-husband, thereafter, filed TS (Div) 21 of 2020 on
11.03.2020 i.e. after completion of 1 (one) year of judicial separation on the
ground that there was no resumption of cohabitation between them during the
period of said 1 (one) year. The Judge, Family Court came to the similar
conclusion that there was no resumption of cohabitation between the parties
and therefore decree of divorce was granted with further direction to the
petitioner-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five
thousand) to the wife till she remarriages.
[4] Challenging the said judgment and decree, the husband has filed
the abovesaid MAT App. No.08 of 2023 mainly on the ground that he earlier
used to work in a private company and for winding up of the company, he was
rendered unemployed and therefore granting of alimony of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
five thousand) per month to the wife was highly excessive.
[5] The wife, on the other hand, filed her appeal bearing No. MAT
App.14 of 2023 challenging the decree of divorce averring that she was always
ready to reside with her husband to lead conjugal life and even in that hope she
did not file any petition for maintenance or any case under Section 498A of the
IPC against her husband. But the husband was all along adamant not to join her
and therefore deprived her from enjoying her conjugal life. Moreso, the
permanent alimony as granted was also not adequate.
[6] We have heard both Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel representing
the husband and Mr. Arjun Acharjee, learned counsel representing the wife.
[7] Mr. Roy, learned counsel argued that after his client became
jobless, he is rendered completely unemployed having no source of income and
therefore imposing the responsibility to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)
per month was very much harsh on his client.
[8] Mr. Arjun Acharjee, learned counsel argued that his client never
treated her husband with any sort of cruelty and was ever willing to lead happy
conjugal life with him but the learned Judge, Family Court has lost sight of the
same. Moreso, the petitioner-husband could not prove the allegation of cruelty
upon him by his wife successfully and therefore the decree of divorce is liable
to be set aside. According to Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel, the petitioner-
husband is a rich person having his 2(two) houses and sufficient bank balance
and therefore the quantum of alimony as was determined by the learned Judge,
Family Court, was inadequate.
[9] It is admitted position that decree of judicial separation was passed
on 11.01.2019. It is also admitted by the respondent-wife in her cross-examination
that for last 8 (eight) years she was living separately from her husband and
therefore it is apparent that there was no resumption of cohabitation during the
period of judicial separation. Therefore, the Family Court has committed no
error in granting the decree of divorce.
[10] So far the matter of permanent alimony is concerned, the
petitioner- husband in his evidence stated that after winding up of the company
where he would work, he lost his job and thereafter he started doing private
tuition for his survival. There was no cross-examination in respect of this part
of evidence. On the other hand, the respondent-wife in her cross-examination
has admitted that she received some honorarium from the Government for
working as a substitute Anganwadi worker. Apart therefrom, no further
satisfactory evidence is led by either parties regarding monthly income of them.
Therefore, the order passed by the Family Court granting Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
five thousand) per month as alimony to the respondent-wife appears to be
proper.
[11] In view of above, both the appeals bear no merit and accordingly
both the appeals are dismissed.
No order as to costs. Send down the LCRs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Rudradeep Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP
RUDRADEEP BANERJEE BANERJEE
Date: 2024.02.01 15:01:26 +05'30'
