Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 327
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, S.C. Das, JJ.
Jayanta Nandi - Appellant
Versus
Shipra Karmakar (Nandi) - Respondent
MAT Appeal No. 11 of 2010Decided On : 10-09-2014
For the Appellant :D.K. Biswas and G.K. Nama, Advocates
For the Respondents:H. Debnath and U. Chanda, Advocates
Unfounded allegations of illicit relationships can constitute mental cruelty, leading to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, justifying the grant of a divorce.
Headnote:
Divorce - Matrimonial Dispute - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13(1) - Mental Cruelty - Black's Law Dictionary - Halsbury's Laws of England - American Jurisprudence - Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane - Sobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi - V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat - Chetan Dass vs. Kamla Devi - Sabitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey - Gananath Pattanaik vs. State of Orissa - Prabin Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta - A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-husband sought a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, alleging that the respondent-wife suspected him of having an illicit relationship with another woman. The respondent-wife denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's baseless allegations of the petitioner's illicit relationship amounted to mental cruelty, leading to an irretrievable breakdown of the matrimonial relationship.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the petition, allegations of mental and physical torture, and entitlement to a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's unfounded allegations of the petitioner's illicit relationship constituted mental cruelty, leading to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, justifying the grant of a divorce.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition for divorce, dissolving the Hindu marriage between the parties.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.1. This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2010, passed by learned Judge, Family Court in T.S. (DIV) 182 of 2008 where-under the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala rejected the prayer of divorce filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.K. Biswas for the appellant-husband and learned counsel Mr. H. Debnath for the respondent-wife.
2. This is yet another unfortunate matrimonial dispute which has shuttered 14 years old matrimonial bond between the appellant (hereinafter mentioned as petitioner) husband and the respondent-wife (hereinafter mentioned as respondent). The petitioner is a Group-D employee and the respondent is a house wife. Their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites following love affairs on 07.03.1995 and thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife and a female child was born on 30.06.1996 out of their wedlock. Soon after marriage they lived and cohabited peacefully and enjoyed their matrimonial relation while living in a rented house belonged to one Uttam Debnath near Rajdhani Hotel at Mara Chowmohani, Agartala and thereafter they lived and cohabited in a Type-I quarters of Power Department, allotted in the name of father of the respondent and the matrimonial relation subsequently become bitter and amid lot of bitterness they lived together as husband and wife till July, 2008 and thereafter, the matrimonial relation come to an end.
3. The petitioner set the law in motion presenting an application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce against his wife, the respondent, on the ground of cruelty. It is, inter alia, alleged by the petitioner that they lived and cohabited peacefully for about 10 years and a girl child was also born out of their wedlock but for the last one and half years, the respondent put pressure on him to give money to her parental home and to give honour to the words of respondent, the petitioner used to hand over his entire income to the hand of the respondent but the respondent was not at all happy with the income of the petitioner and had no respect for the petitioner as her husband. In the year 1996 the petitioner went out of the State for his personal affairs and at that time at the instance of his father-in-law, his wife shifted to a Type-1 quarters of Electricity Department with all belongings and after his return to the rented house when he enquired with the house owner, he got the information that after he left the house his wife along with his father-in-law shifted to a type-I quarters, with all belongings, near Electricity Department at Banamalipur and thereafter he went to the quarters which was allotted in the name of his father-in-law and discussed on the issue. He alleged that the respondent used to threaten him that he should increase his income otherwise, she will divorce him. He also alleged that the respondent on many occasions poured kerosene oil on her body and threatened the petitioner that she will commit suicide and would threat the petitioner of police arrest and incarceration. The petitioner because of his self-respect requested his wife even touching her feet not to do so and his wife beaten him even with her shoes. He did not disclose it to anybody out of shame. He further alleged that his wife was not a characterless woman but was of suspicious character and in the event of his late return from office she used to suspect him and would abuse him with filthy and vulgar words. She often used to refuse cohabitation with him and would say that a husband like him was of no use who cannot earn sufficient. She also used to threat him naming her father and brothers and would say that her father was a prominent leader and they will treat him properly. He further stated that he will continue to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter but he prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce sinc
