Tripura High Court
Sri Rajib Chakraborty vs Smt. Ama Roy on 6 November, 2024
Author: T.Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Mat.App 2 of 2024
Sri Rajib Chakraborty
S/o- Sri Nibir Chakraborty
R/o- Natunnagar, Dighalia
P.O & P.S- Airport, District- West Tripura
------ Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ama Roy
W/o- Sri Rajib Chakraborty
R/o- Krishnanagar, TG Road
Opposite to Ramnagar Road No.3
PO: Agartala & PS: West Agartala,
District: West Tripura
PIN: 799001
---Respondent
For Appellant (s) : Mr. B. N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. K. Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 06.11.2024
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. B. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
husband also heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife.
[2] This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act, 1984 read
with section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated
13.11.2019 passed in T.S.(Divorce) 280 of 2016 by the Ld.Addl. Judge, Family Court,
West Tripura, Agartala.
[3] The facts of the case of husband-appellant, in brief, is that his marriage
was solemnized with the respondent on 11.03.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs.
After marriage appellant and the respondent started leading their conjugal life and out
of their wedlock they were blessed with a female child who took birth on 13.12.2011.
After taking birth of the daughter of the appellant, the respondent went to her father's
house and since then she is residing there. After six months of birth of the child the
appellant approached the respondent to come back to his house. But the respondent did
not agree to come to her in laws house. The appellant on several occasions requested
the respondent to return to his house but again the respondent refused. On 17.05.2012
respondent came to the house of the appellant and she took back all her golden
ornaments and sarees. The respondent is a computer teacher and after six months of her
delivery she again joined her school leaving her newly born baby to her mother. The
appellant requested to give up the job. But the respondent did not consider it. After 8
months of the birth of the child the respondent returned back to the appellant's house.
The respondent again started going to her school regularly. The appellant and his father
requested her to give up the job. But respondent was adamant to give up the same.
Later on one mistress was kept look after the baby. In the month of September, 2012
the appellant received a notice from the Women's Commission on 13.09.2012 and after
receiving the same. The appellant came to learn that the respondent lodged complaint
against him. On 03.12.2012 the respondent told the father of the appellant that she
wants to go to her father's house for two days to which father of the appellant did not
object to that.
[4] On 04.12.2012 the respondent left the house of the appellant with all bag
and baggage and she did not return back. The appellant on several occasions requested
her to come back but she flatly denied. Finding no alternative the appellant filed a RCR
case bearing TS(RCR) 390 of 2012. The said case was dismissed on contest on
02.03.2016. The appellant after dismissal of the RCR case again approached the
respondent to come back to his house but she refused again. The respondent was not
allowing the appellant to meet with his daughter. The respondent has deserted the
appellant since 04.12.2012 and there is no hope of reunion between the parties. Hence
the present case has been preferred by the appellant-husband.
[5] It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the Ld.
Court below fails to appreciate the factual aspect that the respondent never tried to
restitution of conjugal rights rather the husband appellant tried to reconciliation of the
marriage and a long separation by the respondent from the husbands family is a kind of
cruelty whereby the appellant was detached from the family affection without any
lawful excuse. Further, it is also extended by the senior counsel for the appellant that
the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1
Class, Court No. 8 dismissed the contorted application u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, on 30.10.2017, filed by the respondent being not considerable and the same
also amounts to cruelty to the appellant, which is gross illegality and miscarriage of
justice and required to be set aside. Moreover, the Ld. Court also failed to consider the
fact that filing contorted application before the court of law against the appellant which
the respondent fails to prove is also amounts to cruelty especially where the respondent
did not prefer any appeal against the said order.
[6] Subsequently, it is also contended that the Ld. Court below failed to
appreciate the fact spirit of marital piousness has diminishes and the sacred bonding
has already become numb which makes the relationship mere a fleshless skeleton and
in spite of that dismissed the suit which amounts to miscarriage.
[7] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the
learned court below, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
[8] On the contrary, Mr. S. Datta learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has contended before this court that the judgment and decree as passed by
the learned court below is just and proper and needs no interference from this court. He
further prayed to dismiss the appeal by allowing the impugned order dated 13.11.2019
passed in T.S.(Divorce) 280 of 2016 by the Ld.Addl. Judge, Family Court, West
Tripura, Agartala.
[9] At the very outset when this court asked the appellant whether he will
continue to live with his wife after all had happened in the past. On asking, the
appellant informed this court that their marriage has miserably broken and the
appellant is not in a position to carry on with respondent-wife. This court cannot put
pressure on any of the party to live together with each other. Many a time, it has been
seen that a husband or wife approaches to the threshold of court to get justice against
the wrong done to either of them. But when the court intervenes and take hold of the
matter, parties are seen dropping case and leave the premise of the court with an
intention to lead a conjugal life. But here is the case where it cannot be presumed that
there is any scope left for the unison of the husband and the wife. Moreover, the role of
the court is not to remain a spectator but to give justice without being partial to any
party. It is seen from the record that the respondent wife is working lady and girl child
is borne out of their wedlock. Having considered the future of the mother and daughter,
the appellant-husband shall pay a lump sump amount for their better and secured
future. This court also cannot shut its eyes for a lady who is before this Court seeking
nothing but urging to unite with her husband. The unison seems impossible at this stage
but this court, having no alternative and for the better future for the parties, grants
divorce to them and directs the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees ten lakh) as permanent alimony in three equal installment. Hence, the
appellant and respondent are no longer legally married husband and wife and their
marriage stands dissolved. It is made also clear that the respondent wife shall also
withdraw all the cases pending against the appellant-husband listed before different
forum with immediate effect.
[10] With the above observation and direction, this present appeal stands
allowed and disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands closed.
B.Palit, J T. Amarnath Goud, J
Dipak
