Back
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. Talapatra, S.G. Chattopadhyay, JJ.
Smt. Rupa Debbarma, @ Rupali Debbarma - Appellant
Versus
Sri Tapash Debbarma - Respondent
Mat.App 06 of 2018
Decided On : 09-09-2020
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are relevant:
The marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs, and both parties are members of a scheduled tribe within the meaning of Article 366, clause 25 of the Constitution of India. However, since there is no notification issued by the Central Government under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Act does not apply to members of the scheduled tribes unless otherwise directed (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged that the marriage was conducted as per Hindu customs, but due to the absence of a Central Government notification, the Hindu Marriage Act is not applicable for the dissolution of such marriages involving scheduled tribes. The marriage continues to be governed by customary tribal laws and practices (!) (!) .
The issue of whether the marriage was "Hinduised" through customs and rites was discussed, but the court clarified that mere performance of Hindu customs does not constitute conversion to Hinduism. Conversion involves a conscious abandonment of tribal customs and adoption of Hindu religion, which was not established in this case (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the exclusion of scheduled tribes from the application of the Hindu Marriage Act is explicitly based on ethnicity and not on religious conversion. Since no notification has been issued by the Central Government, the marriage is not subject to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act for its dissolution (!) (!) .
The findings regarding cruelty are supported by evidence, but the allegations of desertion are not proved. Nevertheless, the court held that the suit for divorce was not maintainable because of the legal bar created by Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act concerning scheduled tribes (!) (!) .
The court also noted the importance of considering the customs and usages of scheduled tribes in the context of marriage registration and dissolution, suggesting that the absence of statutory records for customary divorces can complicate legal proceedings (!) .
Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the suit for divorce was dismissed on the ground that the Hindu Marriage Act was not applicable due to the statutory exclusion of scheduled tribes, even though the marriage was conducted according to Hindu rites (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and background (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent's claims of cruelty and desertion (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. appellant's disagreements and counterclaims (Para 4 , 11 , 26) |
| 4. court's observations on maintainability (Para 5 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. final rulings of the court (Para 16 , 32) |
| 6. arguments relating to jurisdiction and application of law (Para 17 , 20 , 23 , 30) |
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 23.05.2018 delivered in Title Suit No.12 of 2016 titled as Tapash Debbarma vs. Rupa Debbarma alias Rupali by the Additional District Judge Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur. Pursuant to the said judgment, the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been issued. It has been observed in the said judgment that the undisputed fact is that the appellant herein [the wife] launched a criminal action against the respondent [the husband] under section 494 and 498A of the IPC and the respondent was arrested on the basis of allegation of bigamy for marrying a Nepali girl while his marriage with the appellant is subsisting. On the same ground, the allegation of cruelty was brought by the appellant. It has been further observed that on the day of institution of the petition seeking divorce i.e. 10.08.2016, the parties lived separately for two years as their relation turned animus and hostile. Thus, the Addl. District Judge has observed that the respondent is entitled to get the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion as well.
2. The allegations as brought by the respondent, of cruelty and desertion have been squarely contested and disputed by the appellant by filing the written statement. The respondent has stated in his petition [the plaint] that the marriage with the appellant was solemnized on 27.11.2009 "as per Hindu Sashtras and custom and after observing all formalities of customs of the tribal society". They consummated their marriage at the respondent's official residence at Punjab for about six months. The respondent was posted at Punjab as he was serving under Indian Armed Forces. During the time, the appellant started creating tantrum on insignificant issues. Even she had started to misbehave with his aged mother without any cogent reason whenever she lived at their native village called Kachimcherra under Dhalai District. She used to abuse her by obnoxious slang. Even his married sister, Sangita Debbarma was made target of her abuse. From the very beginning the appellant used to threaten the respondent to take legal action so that the respondent was dismissed from his service. The respondent took all efforts for making her life comfortable. The appellant at one point of time refused to accompany the respondent to his place of posting.
3. In the month of April 2012, without consent of the respondent, the appellant left her matrimonial home by ignoring the respondent's request and started living at native village as she was not willing to live at the place of the respondent's posting. On 17.12.2012, the appellant gave birth of a male child. On having that news from his father-in-law Tari kumar Debbamra, he came down to Kamalpur and provided all expenses for hospitalization, treatment and care through his father-in-law. The appellant was however, grudgingly launched a criminal action against the respondent being Ambassa PS Case No.32 of 2013 under sections 498A/494 of the IPC on false allegations. However, the police investigated the complaint and filed chargsheet against the appellant. The respondent was made to go through excruciating experience of his life by facing that criminal action launched by the appellant. The respondent suffered serious depression and social ignominy. The appellant lived continuously for 4 years being alienated from the matrimonial relation. She had frustrated all efforts of reconciliation as taken by the respondents. Having no other alternative, the respondent filed the petition seeking divorce on dissolution of their marriage. It may be noted that in
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
