Tripura High Court
Shri Biswajit Debnath vs Smti. Paramita Debnath on 16 May, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 11
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
FA No.04 of 2022
Shri Biswajit Debnath,
Son of Shri Bhabatosh Debnath, aged about 40 years, resident of Gandhigram,
P.O. & P.S. Airport, District West Tripura.
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Smti. Paramita Debnath,
Wife of Shri Biswajit Debnath, daughter of Shri Haripada Debnath, resident of
Durjaynagar, P.S. Airport, District West Tripura.
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, Advocate.
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment : 16th May, 2024.
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
husband. Also heard Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-wife.
[2] This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court‟s Act,
1984, against the judgment & decree dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in T.S. (Divorce) 357 of 2015
whereby learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the
petitioner-husband against the respondent.
[3] It is the case of the appellant-husband that the marriage between
the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 04.03.2009 as per Hindu Rites
and customs. As alleged by the appellant, on the day of marriage when the
respondent was brought to "Kunja", it was noticed by the friends and relatives
of the appellant that the bride did not wear the "crown" (Mukut) and garland
worn by the respondent was torn and she behaved abnormally and on being
enquired, the relatives of the respondent told that she wept a lot for her family
members as she had to leave her matrimonial home after marriage. Even the
respondent initially did not agree to exchange garland with the appellant, and at
last, she exchanged garlands with the help of others. After solemnization of
marriage, the appellant and the respondent were shifted to a room where they
were to perform certain rituals and there too the appellant noticed the behavior
of the respondent to be abnormal. On 05.03.2009, the appellant along with the
respondent returned to his house. When the respondent was taken to the
appellant‟s room she was again arrested by her abnormal behavior and she tried
to assault the appellant and suddenly ran out. Appellant‟s parents and relatives
tried to convince the respondent but their efforts turned futile. Thereafter, the
negotiator of the marriage and other guardians from both sides were informed
to which the father, brother and some other guardians of the respondent came to
the house of the appellant and talked with the respondent in a separate room
closing the door. On 06.03.2019, in the dawn, the appellant again noticed her
abnormal behavior. On the same day, on being informed about the incident, the
father and brother of the respondent took her to Dr. Ashim Chowdhury in the
evening but the appellant was not allowed to enter where the doctor examined
her and only on intervention by the appellant, he was allowed to enter the
doctor‟s chamber. From the conversation between the appellant and his parents
and father and brother of the respondent with the doctor, the appellant and his
parents were convinced that the respondent is acquainted with Dr. Ashim
Chowdhury prior to this. On examination of the respondent, the doctor gave her
medicine to which she was feeling drowsy and unable to speak anything. The
respondent was taken back by her father, brother and guardian in their house at
Durjoynagar and consequently the "boubhat" ceremony was cancelled. On
09.03.2009 and 21.03.2009 respectively, the respondent was taken by her
father, brother and other relatives for treatment at Modern Psychiatric Hospital,
Narsingarh, Agartala. It is further alleged by the appellant that the respondent
was periodically checked up by Psychiatrist and there are several medical
documents. The respondent was thereafter treated by some other doctors w.e.f.
28.11.2010 to 17.01.2011. She was again treated at Narsingarh Psychiatric
Hospital on 25.01.2011. On 06.03.2009, the respondent was again arrested by
her abnormal behavior and she was taken to the chamber of Dr. Ashim
Chowdhury in the evening of that day and this incident was informed to the
Airport P.S. on 07.03.2009. A written complaint was also submitted to the
Tripura Women Commission on 09.03.2009 by the mother of the appellant and
thereafter, a Panchayat meeting was held in presence of Pradhan of both
Nabagram and Gandhigram Panchayat in the house of the respondent. After
discussion made by both the Gram Panchayat Pradhans on 12.04.2009, the
respondent was taken back to the appellant‟s house again. On 16.04.2009, the
respondent was again taken back by her father and brother to their house due to
her abnormal behaviour. The respondent did not allow the appellant to touch
her body and also threatened her that she would commit suicide. The matter
was informed to the father and brother of the appellant. On 20.04.2009, mother
of the appellant informed the matter to the Tripura Women Commission and
they advised the parties to attend doctor for treatment of the respondent.
Several meetings were conducted on different dates in the house of learned
Advocate Binoy Bhusan Saha and in those meetings one Sri Sadhan Basu,
Swapan Deb, Uttam Saha, Rupak Deb, Haridas Bhowmik and Prabir Bhowmik
were present along with guardians of both the parties and as per decision of the
meetings, the respondent was taken back to the house of the appellant and
during that period the respondent was treated by different doctors including
Psychiatrist. On 26.01.2011, the respondent was taken back by her brother and
father and she had again suffered with virulent behavior when she was taken to
Dr. Ashim Chowdhury and while returning to her parental house she jumped
from the bike of her brother and thereafter, she was taken to IGM Hospital
wherefrom she was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital. From 20.11.2010 to
26.01.2011, the appellant was away from his house at Chattisgarh to discharge
his duties. On 31.01.2011, the father of the respondent took her to her
matrimonial home and on 01.02.2011, the respondent left her matrimonial
home without informing anybody and finding no other alternative, the appellant
informed the matter to Airport P.S. on 11.02.2011. On 13.03.2013, the
respondent came to her matrimonial home but on the same day, father and
brother of the respondent took her back. On 17.07.2013, the brother of the
respondent dropped her nearby the house of the appellant and she went to the
house of the appellant and again left his house. On 04.01.2015, meeting was
held in the Bar Library Hall, Tripura Bar Association in presence of learned
Advocate Haribal Debnath and Nirmal Ch. Paul and guardians of both sides but
no settlement could be arrived at. The appellant then took initiative and took a
house on rent at Ushabazar and from 09.06.2015 they started living together but
again the respondent was arrested by her abnormal mental behavior and started
shouting and assaulting the appellant and threatened that she will commit
suicide. On 28.06.2015, the appellant tried to convince the respondent to
consummate their marriage but she threatened her not to touch her body and
started hue and cry and ultimately the owner of the house asked them to leave
the house. Finding no other alternative, the appellant informed the matter to the
father and brother of the respondent and they took the respondent along with
them. On 13.11.2010, the respondent filed a case against the appellant and his
family members under Section 498(A) of IPC and on 21.03.2011, the
respondent filed another case to take back her Streedhan. It is also stated that
the respondent is a Type II schizophrenic patient and there is no chance of their
reunion and therefore, the appellant prayed for dissolution of their marriage by
a decree of divorce.
[4] The Family Court had issued notice upon the respondent and on
receipt of the said notice, the respondent appeared and filed her written
statement.
[5] On receiving notice, the respondent appeared before the Family
Court, Agartala and filed her written statement. It is stated in her written
statement that the divorce petition that has been filed by the appellant on the
ground of cruelty, desertion and mental disorder is fallacious. It is stated that
prior to solemnization of marriage, the appellant and the respondent met with
each other and the appellant also visited the house of the respondent and at the
time of their marriage, the father of the respondent gave Rs.90,000/- cash to the
appellant along with other articles as per demand of the appellant. The
respondent alleged that after the day of solemnization of marriage on
04.03.2009, the respondent went to her matrimonial home and on 05.03.2009
dispute started. She stated that on that night, the appellant entered the room in
intoxicated condition and he had affairs with another person to which the
respondent protested and during that night she was mentally tortured. On the
subsequent day, the family members of the appellant sent message to the
parental home of the respondent for providing treatment to the respondent who
is mentally not fit and should be given medical aid by a Psychiatrist. Having no
other alternative and considering the fact that she was under mental pressure
and depression, the father of the respondent took her to Dr. Ashim Chowdhury.
Owing to the situation, the respondent was compelled to return to her parental
house as the in-laws of the respondent refused to take her to her matrimonial
home. It is also alleged by the respondent that as a conspiracy, the appellant and
his in-laws cancelled the "boubhat" ceremony. It is further asserted that on
05.03.2019, the appellant and his family members assaulted the respondent
which caused fear and panic upon the respondent. As the respondent was not
taken back to her matrimonial home, a meeting was convened in presence of
family members of both sides in the residence of the respondent where it was
decided that she would be taken back to her matrimonial home for resumption
of her conjugal life. She was able to stay there for only four days and during
that period a new demand of Rs.50,000/- was made to the father and brother of
the respondent and on their arrival, the appellant and his family members
behaved roughly with them. It is further stated that the appellant without
informing the respondent had left for his place of service and did not even
enquired about her health condition. On his return from service on 12.04.2009,
the appellant once again started to torture upon the respondent both physically
and mentally due to which the respondent fell ill. The father of the respondent
was, thereafter, called and on his arrival with other family members, the
appellant and his family members started abusing them stating that respondent
is mad. It is further stated in the written statement that the complaint lodged by
the mother of the appellant is based with false allegations. The respondent
appeared in the counseling where the appellant stated that he was ready to
restore his conjugal life if the medical board gives report which is evident from
the counseling report dated 26.07.2010 in which it was opined that the
respondent has no symptom of psychopathology and the said report was
narrated to the appellant on 11.09.2010 but inspite of that the appellant was not
agreeable to live with the respondent. He even stated that he was ready to return
all „streedhans‟ and pay compensation to the respondent and he wants divorce
and as such no settlement took place before the Tripura Women Commission.
Being compelled, she filed a complaint before the learned C.J.M., Agartala
against the appellant and his in-laws as they were trying to establish her as
mental patient and the said complaint was forwarded to Airport for
investigation and a case was registered under Section 498(A) of IPC wherein
the police filed charge sheet against the appellant and other. After recording of
evidence of the respondent by the learned Magistrate, the respondent stated that
the appellant and his family members proposed to restore conjugal life and on
that basis she went to her matrimonial home and stayed there for two months.
During that period also, the appellant again started mental and physical torture
upon the respondent and the appellant left the respondent in front of her
parental house and since then she is staying at her parental house and the
appellant did not enquire about her. During pendency of the case, proposal
came for settlement of dispute and accordingly document was prepared for
filing in that case but subsequently the respondent realized that the documents
were prepared for withdrawal of the case not to lead conjugal life. Thereafter,
the appellant took her to a rented house at Ushabazar where they started living.
The respondent there understood the motive of the appellant to take her to a
rented house was just to create scenario that the respondent was mentally ill and
he was practically searching for evidence to show to the public and to produce
before the learned Court. Ultimately, she had to leave the rented house as the
appellant remained absent from the rented house for day and night. Thereafter,
the respondent made a prayer for maintenance allowance before the Family
Court.
[6] On the basis of the pleadings, the Court below has framed the
following issues for adjudication of the case:
I. Whether the petition is maintainable?
II. Whether the petitioner Biswajit Debnath was treated with cruelty by
his wife Smt. Paramita Debnath?
III. Whether the petitioner was deserted by his wife for a minimum period
of 2 years prior to the filing of the petition?
IV. Whether the respondent wife suffers from insanity or such mental
disorder that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with
his wife?
V. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree, as prayed for and to
what other relief/reliefs?
[7] On appreciation of the evidence, the Family Court dismissed the
suit as the appellant-husband failed to prove his case for obtaining a decree of
divorce.
[8] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the
appellant-husband has approached this Court and preferred the instant appeal
and prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) Admit the appeal;
(ii) Call for records;
(iii) Issue notice upon the respondent; and
(iv) After hearing the parties set aside the Judgment & Decree dated
16.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Court of the Judge, Family Court,
Agartala, West Tripura (Smti. S. Choudhury), in T.S.(DIV) 357 of 15,
and thereafter, pass a decree dissolving the marriage in terms of the
prayer made in the plaint, and pass any order/orders as to give for
fair ends of justice.
[9] In terms of order of this Court dated 04.04.2024, both the parties
are present with their respective counsel before us. On a query to the appellant,
it has come to light that the appellant-husband is a constable in CRPF and his
monthly salary is Rs.65,000/-.
[10] Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant has contended
before this Court that the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Judge
Family Court is illegal, erroneous and not tenable in the eye of the law and as
such the same is liable to be set-aside. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel further
submits that there is no chance for restitution of conjugal life between the
couple and hence, decree of divorce may be granted in favour of the appellant-
husband. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that the appellant-husband is ready
to pay permanent alimony of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent-wife.
[11] To controvert the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, Mr.
H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the
husband has failed to make out his case and as such the judgment passed by the
Family Court is unreasonable and thus not sustainable. Learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-wife has submitted that she is not an earning lady
and therefore, she would need Rs.12,00,000/- as permanent alimony for
maintaining herself.
[12] We have considered the submissions advanced by both the learned
counsel for the parties. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the
evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that judgment and decree
dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura is
to be set aside. Accordingly, judgment dated 16.03.2022 is set aside and
quashed. Considering the fact that the appellant-husband is drawing a monthly
salary of Rs.65,000/-, permanent alimony is fixed at Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees
eleven lakhs) which has been agreed upon by the respondent-wife out of one-
time settlement. The said amount is to be paid by the appellant-husband to
respondent-wife within a period of 3(three) months from today by way of
demand draft. Accordingly, the marriage of appellant-husband and the wife-
respondent is hereby dissolved. This Court also directs that the „streedhans‟
which includes one chain of the husband that was gifted at the time of marriage,
one finger ring and one bangle gifted to wife, furniture, sofa, TV, fridge etc
must be returned by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife at the place
where she resides. The maintenance order passed by this Court earlier in a
revision petition is recalled.
Registry is directed to prepare the decree of dissolution of
marriage between the appellant-husband and wife-respondent.
With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands allowed in the
above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rudradeep RUDRADEEP BANERJEE Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP BANERJEE
Date: 2024.05.22 17:17:44 +05'30'
