The court affirmed that irretrievable breakdown of marriage justifies granting divorce, emphasizing the need to ensure stability and support for the dependents involved.

JUDGMENT :

T.Amarnath Goud, J.

Heard Mr. B. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband also heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2019 passed in T.S.(Divorce) 280 of 2016 by the Ld.Addl. Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala.

[3] The facts of the case of husband-appellant, in brief, is that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 11.03.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage appellant and the respondent started leading their conjugal life and out of their wedlock they were blessed with a female child who took birth on 13.12.2011. After taking birth of the daughter of the appellant, the respondent went to her father's house and since then she is residing there. After six months of birth of the child the appellant approached the respondent to come back to his house. But the respondent did not agree to come to her in laws house. The appellant on several occasions requested the respondent to return to his house but again the respondent refused. On 17.05.2012 respondent came to the house of the appellant and she took back all her golden ornaments and sarees. The respondent is a computer teacher and after six months of her delivery she again joined her school leaving her newly born baby to her mother. The appellant requested to give up the job. But the respondent did not consider it. After 8 months of the birth of the child the respondent returned back to the appellant’s house. The respondent again started going to her school regularly. The appellant and his father requested her to give up the job. But respondent was adamant to give up the same. Later on one mistress was kept look after the baby. In the month of September, 2012 the appellant received a notice from the Women's Commission on 13.09.2012 and after receiving the same. The appellant came to learn that the respondent lodged complaint against him. On 03.12.2012 the respondent told the father of the appellant that she wants to go to her father's house for two days to which father of the appellant did not object to that.

[4] On 04.12.2012 the respondent left the house of the appellant with all bag and baggage and she did not return back. The appellant on several occasions requested her to come back but she flatly denied. Finding no alternative the appellant filed a RCR case bearing TS(RCR) 390 of 2012. The said case was dismissed on contest on 02.03.2016. The appellant after dismissal of the RCR case again approached the respondent to come back to his house but she refused again. The respondent was not allowing the appellant to meet with his daughter. The respondent has deserted the appellant since 04.12.2012 and there is no hope of reunion between the parties. Hence the present case has been preferred by the appellant-husband.

[5] It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the Ld. Court below fails to appreciate the factual aspect that the respondent never tried to restitution of conjugal rights rather the husband appellant tried to reconciliation of the marriage and a long separation by the respondent from the husbands family is a kind of cruelty whereby the appellant was detached from the family affection without any lawful excuse. Further, it is also extended by the senior counsel for the appellant that the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Court No. 8 dismissed the contorted application u/s 12 of the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT , 2005, on 30.10.2017, filed b