Tripura High Court
Chandan Kanti Dhar vs Ratna Poddar on 25 September, 2024
Author: T.Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
FA 4 of 2023
Chandan Kanti Dhar,
S/o- Lt. Sankar Dhar,
R/o- Ramnagar Road No.7
PO- Ramnagar, PS- West Agartala, West Tripura
------ Appellant-Husband
Versus
Ratna Poddar
W/o- Sri Chandan Kanti Dhar,
D/o- Late Banbehari Poddar, Vill- Subhash Nagar,
Near Sadhu Tilla School, PO- Renters Colony,
PS- West Agartala, District- West Tripura
---Respondent-Wife
For Appellant (s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Debnath, Advocate.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 25.09.2024
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. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
husband also heard Mr. D. Debnath, 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 dated 14.06.2023 passed by the Ld. Addl. Judge Family Court,
Agartala, West Tripura in TS(Divorce) 392/2019
[3] The facts of the case of husband-petitioner, in brief, is that his marriage was
solemnized with respondent was solemnized in on 10.03.2016 in her parental house as
per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage petitioner lived together with the respondent
as husband and wife in his house. After three years of marriage and conjugal life no child
was born due to their wedlock. It is alleged by the petitioner that after two months of
marriage, the respondent started quarrel with her husband and complained that her
husband is not good looking as he has a white spot on his lip and he is not so educated
than her. The respondent also complained against her husband that she was forced to
marry the petitioner by her mother, brother and elder sister. The respondent was not
agreed to marry the petitioner at all. So, the respondent used to misbehave with the
petitioner with slang languages regularly. Respondent also forced the petitioner to be
separated from his mother and brother so that petitioner and his wife can stay alone in a
rented house. But the petitioner was not agreed with her to stay separately. Due to this
dissatisfaction, the respondent frequently abused her 87 years old mother-in-law, brother-
in-law and her husband with slang language. Respondent also blamed and spread out
false information in the local area about the petitioner that he used to torture her severely
everyday.
[4] It is also pleaded by petitioner that respondent went away from his house
without any information in the month of August, 2017 to her father's house and after
staying there for 5 months she came back with her mother to his house. Respondent then
again went to her parental house and stayed there upto January, 2018 while her mother
sent respondent to her husband's house in February, 2018. Then again she came back to
her father's house. In this way, the respondent went to her father's house several times
upto June, 2018 demanding for separation and making quarrel several times in her
husband's house. Finally respondent left her husband's house with her all gold ornaments
and other valuable clothing and is permanently staying in her parent's house since 11-12-
2018. But she made no contact with petitioner and also did not want to return to her
husband's house. Petitioner also agreed to return her all stridhan articles willfully.
Respondent also lodged a complaint to Mahila Commission, Agartala showing so may
disputes against her husband and after final counseling the Mahila Commission ordered
the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- only per month to the respondent on 17.07.2019 and the
petitioner already paid the said amount to the respondent as maintenance allowance on
20.07.2019.
[5] It is also narrated that on several occasions petitioner and his relatives went
to the parental house of the respondent to take back her but respondent flatly denied to
come back. The respondent even expressed that she was not willing to restore the
conjugal life with the petitioner for a single moment and she did not want to live with the
petitioner. Petitioner being a small businessman of electrical goods he earns monthly
income of Rs.10,000/- only but respondent was not satisfied with his such income. The
respondent also used to threat to cause physical torture to her old mother-in-law. Thus the
cause of action for the suit arose on and from August 2017 when respondent left the
house of petitioner. Hence petitioner prayed to grant decree of divorce in his favour.
[6] Upon issuance of process, respondent appeared and reconciliation process
initiated but ultimately same failed. Then respondent contested the suit by filing written
statement wherein she denied all the assertion of petitioner except the marriage.
Respondent took the plea that after few days of marriage the husband-petitioner and his
relatives started immoral comments regarding her physique and her complexion. They
also uttered filthy language on the pretext of giving no cash dowry by her mother. They
warned respondent that unless she could collect dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- from her
paternal house they would not accept her in their family. The wife-respondent tried to
convince them inability of her poor widow mother to meet their demand. On the next day
of Chaturtha Mangal respondent was mentally tortured by her husband and in-law's even
she was not given sufficient food and her mother in law also forced her to take milk
mixing with suspicious materials in it.
[7] Respondent digested all such torture and humiliation of husband-
petitioner's house. Being driven out by the petitioner the respondent came to her paternal
house and narrated everything to her mother and her brother. Being very poor it was
impossible for her mother & brother to arrange the money for payment of dowry.
However, after some days staying in her paternal house, her mother took back respondent
to har matrimonial house and requested her husband and others to take back her in their
house. Thereafter, respondent remained in her matrimonial house. But her fate was not
changed as tortures and mental abuse were again started on the respondent for dowry.
Moreover, wife-respondent had noticed a new thing that, eldest brother-in-law of the
husband-petitioner, who is unmarried had tried to take the sexual advantage by his
gestures and postures from the wife-respondent. When the respondent had informed it to
her husband, he instead of taking any step against his brother, encouraged the respondent
to fulfill the wishes of his unmarried brother.
[8] Moreover, again on 07/09/2017 the respondent was driven out from her
matrimonial house by the petitioner and his elder brother for taking dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/- from her parental house which they required for their business purpose.
After driving out from the marital home respondent took shelter to her paternal house and
narrated all the tortures ushered on her by her in-laws for payment of dowry. However,
the mother of the wife-respondent has pacified her and told her to adjust with her
husband and her in-laws. Then in December, 2017 her mother brought the respondent to
her husband's house and requested petitioner and his eldest brother and mother to accept
the respondent in their family and left. But nothing was changed, as petitioner and his
relatives intensified mental and physical torture on the respondent. She could not bear all
such torture and abuse and ultimately on 11/12/2018 the respondent was forced to leave
her husband-petitioner's house and thereafter staying at her paternal house with her
widowed mother. This incident was aired in a local electronic media viz. News Vanguard
on 17/07/2019.
[9] Respondent also alleged that the husband-petitioner has extra-marital
affairs with one widowed lady and almost all the days he returns home at late night.
Petitioner could not sleep with the wife-respondent and she was forced to sleep on the
floor and whenever she demanded to sleep with the petitioner, he replied to give her
divorce and that he would marry that widowed lady with whom he is maintaining illicit
relationship. After returning back to the paternal home respondent lodged an FIR on the
allegation of physical and mental torture against the husband-petitioner, his eldest brother
Sri Nirmal Dhar, his mother, Smt. Kiran Bala Dhar, and her in-laws namely Smt. Jhuma
Dhar, Smt. Swapna Dhar & Sri Ashu Banik and a case No- PRC (WP) 423/2020 is
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Agartala, West Tripura.
[10] It is also submitted that the respondent has filed a complaint before the
Women's Commission, Tripura, Agartala, against the petitioner and others and on hearing
of both the parties the Women's Commission has awarded Rs.3,000/- as maintenance for
livelihood of the wife-respondent and ordered the husband petitioner for payment of
maintenance to the wife-respondent. But the husband- petitioner has paid only one month
maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and thereafter the husband-petitioner has not paid any amount
to the wife-respondent. It is also stated that respondent is willing to come back to her
matrimonial house and to restore her conjugal life if the petitioner gives undertaking that
he or any member of his family would not torture the respondent anymore and that
petitioner will not maintain any extra-marital affairs henceforth. With these grounds
respondent prayed to dismiss the petition for divorce.
[11] During trial husband petitioner though submitted affidavit-in-chief of 9
PWs but ultimately examined 7 PWs including himself but exhibited no document.
Respondent, on the other hand, examined 3 DWs and exhibited one document which are
noted in the appendix. Thereafter argument of both parties was heard at length.
[12] After hearing both sides, the learned Court below delivered the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence in the following manner:
"In the result, the petition dated 30.07.2019 lodged by the husband-petitioner to
dissolve the marriage solemnized between himself and respondent on 10.03.2016
is not allowed and the suit is hereby dismissed on contest with cost."
[13] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
[14] 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 he will only accept his wife when she can only conceive a baby. On
the last occasion, the court has also asked the registry to produce the medical report of
the respondent-wife to ascertain whether she can still become a mother. But such report
has not been placed today. On asking, it has been revealed that the respondent wife is
already in her forties. This court has come to the conclusion that from here it would
become difficult for a woman to conceive. This biological inefficiency of her has come in
her way of leading a conjugal life with her husband.
[15] This court has perused the record and is of the opinion that the present
marriage in hand has a chequered history and is beyond reparable stage. A marriage
which is still believed to an institution flourishes when a baby is born out of the wedlock.
Here is the case, where this court feels no child can be borne at this stage. Under no
circumstances is the appellant husband ready to live with the respondent wife.
Nevertheless, 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.
[16] With the above observation and direction, this present writ petition 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
