The court emphasized the necessity of hearing both parties in family law matters, ruling against ex-parte decisions to protect the principles of justice and fair trial.

JUDGMENT

1. Mr. D.J. Saha, learned counsel on instruction of Mr. T. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant along with his client namely Smt. Dipali Saha. On the other side, the respondent namely Sri Bimal Bikash Saha appears in person.

2. This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Case No. T.S. (Divorce) 255 of 2017 whereby the marriage tie between the respondent husband and the appellant wife was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955.

3. The brief fact is that the marriage of the appellant wife and respondent husband was solemnized on 04.02.1993 following the Hindu Rites and customs. Out of their wedlock a male child was born namely Banik Kamal Saha. There were several disputes between the appellant and the respondent which had also led to physical and mental abuse of the appellant. The respondent had filed a petition before the learned Family Court seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 vide case No. T.S. (Divorce) 255 of 2017. On 17.11.2021 the learned Family Court heard the matter in absence of the appellant wife despite the fact that the appellant wife was out of station for the purpose of her treatment. The learned Family Court heard the ex-parte against the appellant and the decree of divorce as prayed for by the present respondent husband stands allowed. Hence, the present appeal.

4. The appellant has submitted that marriage was peaceful at the beginning. However, later on after the demise of father in law in the year 1996 some family dispute started between the respondent husband and his brother regarding share of household property and the Bookstall situated at Orient Chowmuhani, Agartala. He has submitted that the appellant wife tried to help the family to settle the dispute amicably between the two brothers, rather the respondent husband misunderstood her good intentions and started to misbehave with her and alleged her of having bad intentions.

5. It has been further stated by the appellant that the respondent used to abuse her demanding money from her father and blamed the wife for her interference due to which the respondent husband was at loss for not getting a better share in his ancestral property. The appellant wife being badly abused by all household members and day by day she was being tortured physically, mentally and emotionally. The appellant wife preferred CR-165/2014 under Domestic Violence Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala. During the pendency of that case, the appellant wife was again subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws and preferred a complaint in the East Agartala Women P.S. and an FIR was registered under Section 498(A), 34 of the IPC vide FIR No. 1060 dated 27.10.2016.

6. The respondent husband has approached the Family Court time and again with similar litigation against the wife with false allegations and himself withdrawn those litigations as he failed to prove them. During the pendency of the case, there was an offer made from the respondent husband to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- for permanent settlement to which the appellant wife did not agree to and demanded more alimony for the rest of her life and in a meeting before the book sellers of Orient Chowmuhani and well wishers of both the parties, the respondent husband promised to provide a portion of his homestead land as her shelter and to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- as permanent alimony. The appellant wife depends on her husband financially having no sufficient income. At present, the respondent husband and his family have