SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Gau) 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
I.A. Ansari and P.K. Musahary, JJ.
Kajal Das
Vs.
Smt. Juli Mahajan (Das)
Mat. Appeal No. 21 of 2007
Decided On: 07.01.2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Banik, Ms. B. Sarma and Ms. P. Gogoi
For Respondents/Defendant: G.P. Bhowmik and Samrat Saha Roy

Headnote:

Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 27 (1) Clause (c) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 498(A)/ 506 – Cruelty – Criminal Intimidation - District Judge refused to dissolve marriage - While mother of appellant was acquitted by trial Court, appellant was convicted - As against his conviction, appellant preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal and it was in appeal that appellant was acquitted - As a result of lodging of said case, appellant and his mother suffered financial loss and also mental torture and their reputation in society was damaged - Whether appellant according to evidence on record, had been treated with cruelty by respondent - Held, Merely because case against appellant was found to be not reliable, vague and inconsistent, it is not possible to hold, boldly and confidently, that case against appellant was false - The reference, which counsel, has made to case of Rishikesh Sharma (supra), does not apply to case at hand inasmuch as in case of Rishikesh Sharma (supra), wife had filed not merely one, but several criminal cases, one after other and it was in such circumstances that Supreme Court had observed that there was a history of litigation that respondent wife had repeatedly been filing criminal cases against appellant, which could not be substantiated by her - In present case, there was only one criminal case, which was lodged by respondent and case failed - Hence, observations, made in Rishikesh Sharma (supra), cannot be borrowed and applied to facts of present case - Court view that learned trial Courts finding to effect that appellant had not been able to make out any case justifying granting of a decree of divorce does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is an appeal, against the judgment and decree, dated 14-6-2007, passed, in Title Suit (Divorce) Case No. 11 of 2003, by the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, refusing to dissolve the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. The case of the appellant may, in brief, be described thus: The parties to the suit solemnized their marriage, on 3-3-1998, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, at the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Tinsukia. About two months after marriage, i.e., on 24-5-1998, the respondent came to the house of the appellant without the consent of her mother and started leading her conjugal life with the appellant. However, on that very day, the respondent's mother came to the house of the appellant and she took away from the respondent her earrings and chain, which the respondent had brought from her matrimonial house. The mother of the respondent even rubbed the vermillion from the head of the respondent. At the time of her marriage with the appellant, the respondent was a student of Part-I degree course. The appellant allowed the respondent to continue with her studies and the appellant's mother got the respondent admitted in BA Part-II course in Women's College, Tinsukia, and provided facilities to the respondent to attend her classes regularly. A few months after her marriage, the respondent started behaving in an abnormal manner and she did not show even minimum respect and regard to the elder members of the appellant's family and that she used to move out the house of the appellant as and when she wanted. The respondent, eventually, left, on 16-2-1999, the appellant's house in the absence of the appellant and refused to come back to her matrimonial home despite many persuasive attempts made by the appellant and his well wishers. In order to subject the appellant and his family to mental cruelty and harassment, the respondent lodged a First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), at Doom Dooma Police Station, alleging to the effect, inter alia, that on 16-2-1999, the respondent had become unconscious, but neither the appellant nor any of the members of his family took her to any doctor and the respondent had to be brought back to her matrimonial house by her parents and, then, the respondent underwent medical treatment. This apart, the respondent also alleged, in the FIR, that she had asked the appellant to return her certificates, but the appellant refused to do so and threatened her with dire consequences. Based on the said FIR, Doom Dooma Police Station Case No. 275 of 1999, under Section 498(A)/ 506 IPC, was registered against the appellant and his mother and both of them were tried by the criminal Court. While the mother of the appellant was acquitted by the learned trial Court, the appellant was convicted. As against his conviction, the appellant preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 26(2)/2002 and it was in the appeal that the appellant was acquitted. As a result of lodging of the said case, the appellant and his mother suffered financial loss and also mental torture and their reputation in the society was damaged. There is no scope of reunion between the parties concerned, because of the cruelty with which the respondent has treated the appellant and his family. This apart, the appellant is frightened to live with the respondent.

2. The respondent filed her written statement resisting the application for divorce, her case being, briefly stated, thus: Though their marriage was solemnized on 3-3-1998, the appellant did not take the respondent to his house due to some internal family problems and it was the respondent, who went to the house of the appellant and started leading conjugal life with him, but the respondent was subjected to mental torture by the appellant and his mother. As the respondent was unable to bear the cruelty heaped on her, she fainted on 16-2-1999. However, the appellant did not take care of the respondent and did not eve






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top