Tripura High Court
Smt. Sangita Debnath vs . on 28 January, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAT. APP. NO.31 OF 2024
Smt. Sangita Debnath
Vs.
Sri Sentu Debnath.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Present:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Prabir Saha, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kaushik Datta, Advocate.
Mr. Saugat Datta, Advocate.
28.01.2025
Order
This present appeal has been filed seeking to set
aside/reverse the impugned Judgment & Order dated
14.06.2024, as well as the decree dated 28.06.2024, in
connection with Case No. T.S (R.C.R) 98/2021, passed by the
learned Additional Family Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura,
Agartala.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage
between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was
solemnized on 30.01.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs. In
the said marriage, the parents of the appellant-wife, as per
the demand of the respondent-husband, provided all
necessary articles along with Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash. Prior to
marriage, it was a condition precedent that the appellant
should complete her graduation. On the day of the marriage
ceremony, the respondent demanded a luxury vehicle. After
the marriage, due to household responsibilities and the
demand for the vehicle, the appellant-wife was allegedly
subjected to physical and mental torture by the respondent
and his mother. Additionally, they attempted to obstruct the
appellant's education. Ultimately, the appellant was driven out
of the respondent's house on 02.05.2021.
3. Thereafter, the respondent initiating a case before
the Family Court bearing No. T.S (RCR) 98/2021, the appellant
subsequently filed a maintenance proceeding against the
respondent, who is a government servant. During
reconciliation in the maintenance proceedings, the appellant
accepted the respondent's proposal for maintenance of Rs.
4,500/-, and accordingly, the learned Family Court, on
26.08.2022, passed an order directing the respondent to pay
the said maintenance.
4. After exhausting all proceedings in Case No. T.S
(RCR) 98/2021, the learned Family Court passed a Judgment
& Decree in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to
restore conjugal life within 45 days, failing which she would
not be entitled to maintenance. Since the date of the order,
the maintenance allowance has been stopped. Aggrieved by
this, the appellant-wife has preferred this appeal seeking the
following reliefs:
"i. Admit this appeal.
ii. Issue notice upon the respondent.
iii. Call for the relevant record in Case No. T.S (FC) R.C.R
98/2021 from the learned Additional Family Judge, Court
No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, along with the impugned
Judgment & Order dated 14/06/2024, as well as the decree
dated 28/06/2024.
iv. After hearing both the parties at length in terms of the
grounds set forth above, be pleased to quash/set
aside/reverse the impugned Judgment & Order dated
14/06/2024 as well as decree dated-28/06/2024, in
connection with Case No. T.S (FC) R.C.R 98/2021, passed by
the Ld. Additional Family Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura,
Agartala and thereafter allow the Appeal filed by the
Appellant.
V. Pass an order for staying the operation of the impugned
Judgment & Order dated 14/06/2024 as well as decree
dated-28/06/2024, in connection with Case No. T.S (RCR)
98/2021, till the disposal of the instant Appeal."
5. Heard Mr. Prabir Saha, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-wife, and Mr. Kaushik Datta, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-husband.
6. In compliance with the order of the Court dated
21.01.2025, both parties are personally present before this
Court today. Despite repeated efforts made by this Court to
facilitate reconciliation, the appellant-wife expressed her
unwillingness to resume conjugal life, stating that she had
suffered significantly and could not contemplate returning. On
the other hand, the respondent-husband expressed his desire
to lead a conjugal life with the appellant-wife.
7. Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel for the appellant-wife,
submitted that, based on the observation made by the lower
court in paragraph 36 of the Judgment & Order dated
14.06.2024 in Case No. T.S (R.C.R) 98/2021, the respondent
has stopped paying maintenance allowance, causing hardship
to his client.
8. Heard.
9. After thoroughly examining the Judgment and
Decree in the restitution of conjugal rights case dated
14.06.2024 and the corresponding decree dated 28.06.2024,
and after personally hearing both parties, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Family
Court. Accordingly, the Judgment & Decree are upheld.
However, the condition imposed in paragraph 36 of the said
Judgment, which links the payment of monthly maintenance to
the restoration of conjugal life, is found to be unjust and is
therefore expunged. The respondent is directed to continue
paying the maintenance allowance as per law. Both parties are
at liberty to take steps in accordance with law for the
respective lawful remedies. .
10. Accordingly, paragraph 36 of the Judgment dated
14.06.2024 is clarified to the extent indicated above.With the
above observation and direction, this present appeal stands
disposed of. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any stands closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2025.01.30 13:22:07
SINGHA +05'30'
