Tripura High Court
Sri Litan Baidya vs . on 10 September, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAT APP NO.17 OF 2024
Sri Litan Baidya
Vs.
Smt. Sampa Dey(Baidya)
MAT APP NO.18 OF 2024
Sri Litan Baidya
Vs.
Smt. Sampa Dey(Baidya)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Present:
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. S. Deb(Gupta), Advocate.
Ms. R. Dey, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
10.09.2024
Order
These appeals are taken up together for disposal since
the same arises out of common Judgment and Decree and similar
dispute and marital discord are involved.
2. Mat App No.17 of 2024 has been filed against the
Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2024 and 02.04.2024 passed
by the learned Addl. District Judge Sabroom, South Tripura in
T.S.(RCR)02 of 2022 allowing the wife-respondent for restitution
of conjugal right and Mat App No.18 of 2024 has been filed
challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2024 and
02.04.2024 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sabroom,
South Tripura in T.S.(Div) No.3 of 2022 rejecting the petition for
divorce filed by the appellant-husband.
3. The brief fact of these cases are that the
respondent-wife filed an application for restitution of her Conjugal
right before the learned District Judge, Belonia South Tripura
which was transferred to learned Sessions Judge Sabroom, South
Tripura and registered as T.S.(RCR)-02/2022. The appellant-
husband also filed an application for dissolution of his marriage
with the respondent-wife before the learned District Judge,
Belonia, South Tripura, which was transferred to the learned
Sessions Judge, Sabroom South Tripura and registered as
T.S.(Divorce)-03/2022. After receipt of the summons from the
Court below, both the parties appeared and contested the cases
and adduced their witnesses. The learned Court below vide its
common Judgment and decree dated 28.03.2023 and 02.04.2024
allowed the restitution petition filed by the respondent-wife and
rejected the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with said Judgment and Decree, the
appellant-husband has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-husband as well as Ms. A. Debbarma,
learned counsel along with Ms. S. Deb Barman, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-husband.
5. Mrs. S. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-husband submits that impugned Judgment and
Decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sabroom is a
result of mis-appreciation of fact and law. The learned Court
below attached undue weight and importance to the pleading of
the wife-respondent ignoring the defense case. The learned Court
below without any basis concluded that the respondent-wife was
subjected to torture both mentally and physically by the
appellant-husband. Learned counsel also submitted that the
mother of the appellant-husband lodged one written FIR before
the O.C. Manubazar Police Station, Sabroom against the
respondent-Sampa Dey, and her associates for entering into the
house of the complainant and physically assaulting the husband
of the complainant. Stating thus, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-husband urged this Court to allow these appeals
and quash the impugned Judgment and Decree.
6. On the other hand, Ms. A. Debbarma, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-wife submits that Judgment
and Decree as passed by the Court below is just and proper and
needs no interference.
7. Heard and perused the evidence on record.
8. Here it is evident to mention that vide Order dated
14.08.2024, this Court tried to mutually settle the matter
between the parties wherein both the parties agreed to try to lead
a conjugal life. Accordingly, these cases have been fixed today to
express their opinion. Today when the case is called, learned
counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the attempt to
lead a conjugal life between the parties have failed. As such,
today the case is heard on merit.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the
Judgment and Decree of the learned Court below. The learned
Court below based on the testimonies of the wife's father i.e.
OPW-2 and the landlord i.e. P.W.-3 in RCR case concluded that
the husband has committed act of cruelty and tortured the wife-
respondent. The father of the respondent-wife testified that the
appellant-husband used to abuse his daughter by calling her a
lady of dark skin and daughter of tea stall owner. He also testified
that despite several seating for compromise and settlement and
birth of a female child, his son-in-law did not change his cruel
conduct, acts and consequence, his daughter was driven out on
two occasions. P.W.-3, the landlord also stated that the parties to
the case while staying as tenants in his house, the husband
subjected the wife to cruelty physically and used to treat her with
contempt calling her a lady of dark skin. Due to non-fulfilment of
motorbike demand, she was tortured and later on she had taken
shelter in her parental home. These testimonies, which establish
the abusive conduct of the husband remained unshaken and could
not be demolished by the husband side. The lower Court's
findings are based on sound reasoning and credible evidence,
which this Court fully concurs with. Furthermore, it is evident that
the wife herein, due to the husband's continuous acts of cruelty
and ill-treatment is unable to lead a normal conjugal life.
10. In view of the above, this Court confirms the
impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2024 and
02.04.2024 of the learned Court below, and the appeals stand
dismissed. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s) if any also stands closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT SINGHA
SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2024.09.13 12:22:21
+05'30'
