The court upheld that non-compliance with a restitution of conjugal rights decree, corroborated claims of cruelty, and related allegations justified the dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Ms. P Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abir Baran, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Mr. A Dey, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 from the judgment dated 15.11.2019 delivered in TS (Div) 13/2010. By the said judgment, the District Judge, Gomati district, Udaipur dissolved the marriage that subsisted between the appellant and the respondent.

3. The suit was originally instituted before the Judge, Family Court, Agartala but by a judicial order, the said matrimonial suit was transferred to the court of the District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur.

4. The marriage between the parties admittedly took place on 13.08.2011 and thereafter, they had consummated the marriage and in the wedlock their only girl Chandni Das was born on 11.02.2014. At the instance of the appellant, several cases against the respondent were instituted being PRC 247/2013, Misc. 16/2013 and CR(DV)05/2014. All those cases are related to matrimonial discord or domestic violence and for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. Serious allegations was brought against the appellant that she had abetted the suicide of the mother of the respondent and accordingly, a prosecution was launched against her under Jirania Police Station Case No. 47/2015 under Section 306 /507/109 of the IPC.

5. The appellant, as well, brought some criminal prosecutions against the petitioner [the respondent herein] on the same allegations which were interfered by this court in Crl. Rev. Pet. 30/2016. This court had occasion to hold that on the self-same allegation fresh prosecutions cannot be allowed to take place. However, in the proceeding for maintenance, the appellant acceded to have the maintenance from the appellant.

6. The respondent herein, filed a petition under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights being TS(RCR) 31 of 2015. By the judgment dated 26.03.2016, the judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura allowed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights being TS (RCR) 31 of 2015. By the judgment dated 26.03.2016, the Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, allowed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights directing the appellant to join the matrimonial home with immediate effect. It has been observed in para 7 of the judgment that the appellant did not come forward to challenge or question the statements of the witnesses and as such it has been further observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the respondent as that remained unchallenged by the appellant herein. That apart, the witnesses as adduced by the respondent appeared reliable to the Judge, Family court, West Tripura, Agartala.

7. Ms Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly admitted that the said judgment and decree as passed in TS (RCR) 31 of 2015 was not assailed by the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent filed a matrimonial suit under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT praying for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce being TS (Div) 13 of 2018. The said suit was decreed by the judgment dated 15.11.2019 which is, as noted above, under challenge in this appeal.

8. The District Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur while allowing the suit, has, after appreciation of the evidence, observed that in view of the clear evidence of the petitioner (the respondent in this appeal) about ill treatment on him and his mother and the corroboration by PW 2 and PW 3, it