KALPANA DAS Vs. AJAY DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and order dtd. 5/11/2022 passed in connection with Case No. Crl. Misc 181 of 2020 delivered by Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura whereby the Learned Judge, Family Court Agartala has rejected the petition for granting maintenance allowance filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The gist of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Learned Family Judge was that her marriage was solemnized with O.P. Ajay Das on 19/4/2019 as per Hindu Marriage Rites and Customs at Sanmura, Agartala, District, West Tripura in presence of the well-wishers of both the parties. After the marriage, the petitioner went to her matrimonial home and started resuming conjugal life with OP as husband and wife. The petitioner asserted that on the first night of her marriage, she noticed that the OP was partially handicapped and after marriage, she also heard that previously the OP got married which was later on dissolved by a decree of divorce. On the first day of 'boubhat', the OP took away her mobile phone for which she could not communicate with her parents and others. On the following day of her boubhat at about 11pm, the OP and other relatives took her to their worship room and scolded her saying that her parents had given sub-standard quality of articles which might have stolen from somewhere and given in marriage. They demanded more article as dowry. Not only that the mother-in-law on each and every day used to abuse her in slang languages and used to scold her saying that they would not receive anything from her hand as she was of dark complexion. The petitioner has to do all the household works although her mother-in-law and other in-laws used to scold her and she used to remain in half fed and unfed for days together. Even she was also not allowed to visit her parent's house during dhiragaman. On 26/5/2019, the petitioner came to know that the younger brother of the petitioner sustained burn injuries on his leg and after hearing the news, she informed the OP and her family members to take her to see her brother but the OP refused and scolded her by saying that she was telling lie. After that, on 29/5/2019, she was allowed to visit her brother when the petitioner made the OP understand. But after coming to her parent's house, she disclosed all the miserable facts and mental torture committed upon her at her matrimonial home and expressed her unwillingness to go back to her matrimonial home as she apprehended that if she returns back she would be killed. As the financial condition of her brother was not sound, it was difficult on his part to maintain the petitioner. The OP also never enquired about her nor visited the parent's house of the petitioner and since then she has been residing at her parent's house having no source of income. It was further submitted that the OP was earning Rs.10,000.0012,000/- per month but he was not paying any maintenance to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the petition before the Court seeking maintenance.

(3.) In obedience to the notice issued, the OP contested the proceeding by filing written objection and he admitted the fact of his marriage with the petitioner. But he denied the entire allegation in averments made by the petitioner in her petition. The OP further took the plea that the petitioner was aware that he is partially handicapped and a divorcee and as such she agreed to marry him and this matter was disclosed prior to the marriage and the petitioner's family visited his residence two/three occasions. It was further asserted that on the day of marriage, the petitioner and her family members started abusing him saying that he is a handicapped person cannot walk properly and he looks like an idiot but the OP did not react to their comments and after completion of marriage ceremony she started saying that she does not want to reside with the OP as husband and wife and after several persuasion she agreed to go to her matrimonial home. It was further asserted that after coming to her matrimonial home she was given all respect by the OP and his family members but the petitioner was always living with a mindset that her husband is handicapped and used to abuse him saying that all his family members have made her fool by giving her marriage with a handicapped person and she was not willing to do household works. The OP further submitted that all the time the petitioner was engaged with her mobile phone and used to talk regularly with her family members. In one occasion, her sister-in-law came to the matrimonial home of the petitioner and started shouting to the mother-in-law of the petitioner saying that why the petitioner could not receive her call and she would face dire consequences in future. The OP further submitted that when the brother of the petitioner sustained injury she was sick and all the family members in the matrimonial home suggested her not to visit her parent's house to see her brother and on the next day, the petitioner remained sick and father of the OP rushed to parent's house of the petitioner and told them they will help in the situation if anything is needed and when the petitioner recovered from her illness, she went to see her brother but after going to her parent's house, she did not return back to her matrimonial home inspite of repeated request, saying that she will not return back and refused to live her life with OP. The OP requested her to return back but she abused him over phone. He further stated that he does not earn Rs.10,000.0012,000/- per month rather he earns Rs.3,500.00 as an employee in a garment shop and he is very much eager to resume his conjugal life with the petitioner but the petitioner voluntarily left her matrimonial home. So, she is not entitled to get any maintenance.