Tripura High Court
Sri Sabuj Majumder vs Smt. Jyosmita Das on 16 May, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
F.A. 8/2023
Sri Sabuj Majumder, son of Sri Subal Majumder, being Electrician now
serving under the Commandant, 13th Bn. Tripura State Rifles, Kanchanpur,
P.O. + P.S. Kanchanpur, District- North Tripura.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Jyosmita Das, wife of Sri Sabuj Majumder, D/o Sri Ramesh Das,
resident of Uttar Kumarghat, P.O. + P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti,
Tripura.
----Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Biplab Debnath, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. HK Bhowmik, Advocate
Date of hearing and delivery
of Judgment & Order : 16.05.2024
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Judgment & Order (Oral)
(Arindam Lodh,J)
Heard Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
husband. Also heard Mr. HK Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-wife.
2. This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 has been preferred by the appellant-husband challenging the legality
and validity of the judgment dated 30.05.2023 passed by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti, Tripura, in case no. Title Suit (RCR) 11
of 2021 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the appellant-husband for
restitution of his conjugal rights has been dismissed.
3. The facts in brief, are that, the marriage of the appellant and the
respondent was solemnized on 19.05.2014 according to Hindu rites and
customs and on solemnization of their marriage they started to lead their
conjugal life in the house of the appellant. At the time of marriage, the
appellant was serving as Group 'D' employee under 13th Bn. TSR and
posted at Kanchanpur, North Tripura. After a few months of the marriage,
respondent left her matrimonial home and started to reside in her paternal
residence with the consent of the appellant, but, after elapse of 15-20 days,
the respondent expressed her unwillingness to return to her matrimonial
home. Despite several requests of the appellant, the respondent did not
return to her matrimonial home. Finding no other alternative, the appellant
used to visit the paternal home of the respondent, and out of their wedlock
one female child was born. In the year 2016 when the uncle of the
respondent was involved in a murder case, then to avoid police
interrogation, the respondent started to live in her matrimonial home, but
after completion of police investigation, she again left her matrimonial home
and started to reside in her paternal house.
3.1. Subsequently, in the year 2018, the respondent filed a petition
before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar claiming monthly
maintenance for herself and for her daughter and the said case was registered
as Crl. Misc. (125) 80 of 2018. The petitioner i.e. the appellant herein after
receipt of notice appeared before the learned court and the learned court
below directed him to pay maintenance allowance @Rs.6,500/- per month to
the respondent and her daughter and, accordingly, the said case was
disposed of on compromise, and thereby the appellant had been paying
Rs.6,500/- per month to the respondent as maintenance allowance.
3.2. Thereafter, the appellant being petitioner filed a petition under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Judge, Family Court,
Kailasahar, for restitution of his conjugal rights and the same was registered
as T.S. (RCR) 11 of 2021. In the said petition, the appellant contended that
the respondent without any reasonable excuse withdrew herself from his
society and on the other hand the respondent by filing written statement
denied the allegations made by the appellant herein and asserted that she was
subjected to mental and physical torture on demand of dowry.
3.3. Upon hearing both sides, the learned trial court had dismissed
the suit filed by the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition for
enhancement of the maintenance amount before the learned trial court and
the same was registered as Crl.Misc (127) 04 of 2021. Upon hearing, learned
trial court allowed the said petition enhancing the monthly maintenance at
Rs.12,000/- per month. Being aggrieved, the appellant had approached this
court.
4. On 18.04.2024, when the matter was taken up for hearing, this
court had interacted with both the appellant and the respondent, who were
present in-person before this court wherein this court found that there is a
possibility of amicable settlement between the parties and, accordingly,
listed the matter on 25.04.2024. When the matter was taken up on
25.04.2024 for hearing, the respondent-wife categorically expressed her
willingness to dissolve her marriage with the appellant. The appellant has
also acceded to the proposal made by the respondent-wife for dissolution of
their marriage, and accordingly, both of them have agreed to file an
application for dissolution of their marriage mutually.
5. On 13.05.2024 the appellant and the respondent have filed a
joint compromise application being registered as I.A. 3 of 2024 seeking an
order for dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent subject to the terms
and conditions enumerated therein. The terms and conditions of the
compromise petition, which they have jointly filed before this court is
reproduced here-in-below:
"i. That, both the appellant and respondent have only minor daughter Miss Saanvi
Majumder who is now aged about 7 years and now in custody of wife respondent
and it is decided the aforesaid Custody will continue with the wife respondent till
attained her majority and it is also decided the visiting rights of the Husband
appellant to his minor daughter will be decided on mutual consent of the parties.
ii. That, the Stridhan article of the wife respondent which are lying in the custody
of Husband Appellant in his house, would take appropriate steps for returning
those articles to the wife respondent, parental house and the transportation cost
of the same to be borne by the husband appellant and the wife respondent after
receiving of those articles would issue acknowledgement receipt.
iii. That, at present though wife respondent is receiving maintenance allowance of
Rs. 4000/ for herself and Rs. 2500/- for her minor daughter but Ld trial court it has
been enhanced for the wife Rs. 7000/- per month and for the minor daughter Rs.
5000/- per month and no arrear of maintenance allowance has been paid since
the order passed on 16-05-2023 by the Husband appellant petitioner. However, at
this stage both the parties has agreed to leave the matter upon the Hon'ble High
court to decide the quantum of monthly maintenance allowance for the Wife
respondent and her minor daughter considering the enhanced maintenance Order
passed on 16-05-2024 in connection with Crl Misc. (127) 4 of 2021 and taking
consideration of salary certificate for the month of April 2024 of the husband
appellant or this Hon'ble High court may kindly Order instead of monthly
maintenance, permanent alimony for the wife respondent with the order of
monthly maintenance to the minor daughter as the Hon'ble High court deem fit
and proper.
iv. That, parties also decided if this Hon'ble High court allowed this petition in that
case they will take appropriate steps for withdrawal or disposal of Crl. Rev. P 64 of
2023 pending before this Hon'ble High court in court No.5."
6. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for
reducing the maintenance allowance as enhanced by the learned trial court
on the ground that the appellant himself is suffering from various ailments
and also he has to look after his aged ailing mother who is seriously ill and
has to incur substantial part of his salary towards their medical expenditure.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the
respondent has argued that the maintenance order as passed by the learned
trial court is justified and no interference is required.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
also have gone through the joint compromise petition filed through I.A. 3 of
2024.
9. Admittedly, both the appellant and the respondent are living
separately for more than 8 years. During this period they never stayed
together even for a single day which indicates that their sentiments and
emotions have dried up and there is hardly any chance of restoration of their
conjugal life. In the meantime, several litigations were also filed against
each other. Further, it is evident from the record that on 25.04.2024, when
this court took up the matter for hearing, the respondent-wife had expressed
her willingness to dissolve her marriage with the appellant to which the
appellant also acceded to. In the background of the circumstances, in our
opinion, there is no chance of repairing the marital tie between the parties
which prompted us to hold that the marriage solemnized between the
appellant and the respondent has lost all its meaning, which cannot be
refurbished or rebuilt. Any fresh attempt for survival of the marital tie
between the appellant and the respondent would be a futile exercise since
already all attempts of re-union through mediation and conciliation failed
and any further attempt would be sheer wastage of valuable time and energy.
We, personally have interacted with both, the appellant and the respondent,
but, this court could not reach to a suitable solution and both the parties
wanted their marriage to be dissolved.
10. In the backdrop of the above analysis, we have no other
alternative but to hold that the marriage between the appellant and the
respondent has irretrievably broken down and since the appellant and the
respondent have mutually decided to dissolve their marital tie following
certain terms and conditions of the joint compromise petition, the marriage
between the appellant, Sri Sabuj Majumder and the respondent, Smt.
Jyosmita Das stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. It is directed that the
parties shall abide by the terms and conditions as enumerated in the joint
compromise petition.
11. Now, the question comes for consideration as regards the
quantum of maintenance the wife-respondent would be entitled to in the
context of the case, which they could not settle.
12. We have heard both the wife-respondent as well as husband-
appellant. The husband-appellant has produced his salary certificate
wherefrom it reveals that his salary is Rs.36,000/- and odds per month.
13. However, this court is to take into consideration the financial
capacity of the husband-respondent, his actual income, reasonable expenses
for his own maintenance, and dependent ailing mother whom he is obliged
to maintain under the law and liabilities, to arrive at the appropriate quantum
of maintenance to be paid.
14. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant shall pay
maintenance amount @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent for herself
and her daughter to be shared equally. The said amount shall be paid within
7th day of every English calendar month. Resultantly, the Order dated
16.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti
in Crl. Misc. (127) 4 of 2021 stands set aside and modified to this extent.
However, the respondent is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum and
seek any assistance in the event of certain exigency in the process of
pursuing the education of the daughter.
15. In view of the above, the instant appeal stands disposed.
Prepare the decree accordingly.
The terms and conditions as laid down in the joint compromise
petition apart from the directions given at para 12 of this judgment shall
form a part of the decree.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR KAR
Date: 2024.05.24 12:26:24
+05'30'
