BIJIT KUMAR BANIK Vs. KABERI BANIK (DEBBARMA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the legality of the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2013 delivered in TS (Div) 104/2009 by the learned Judge, Family court, Agartala, West Tripura whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 13(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been rejected.

(2.) THE factual aspects relevant to the context may be briefly introduced at the outset. The appellant married the respondent on 22.07.1994 as per Hindu rites and customs. According to the appellant, the respondent expressed soon after their marriage her serious reservation to live in the joint family. Thus, the appellant was compelled to reside in a rented house at Advisor Choumuhani, Krishnanagar, Agartala. The respondent had habit to quarrel with him without any issue whatsoever and abused him by abusive language almost on regular basis. Thus, the appellant was subjected to severe mental pain. Even sometimes the respondent used to physically assault him. The appellant bore the brunt of such mental cruelty to protect the dignity of his family. The respondent gave birth two sons. The respondent had lodged a complaint with the Women Police Station, Agartala framing the appellant and his mother for allegedly torturing her. However, when good sense prevailed, the respondent had withdrawn the said complaint stating, inter alia, that the said complaint was lodged on a moment of excitement. Admittedly both the appellant and the respondent lived together thereafter. Only on 30.10.2005, without any tangible cause the respondent left the matrimonial home. Despite repeated approaches by the appellant, she did not join in the matrimonial home. In the course of time, the appellant was given the custody of their elder son and he has been taking due care on spending a lot of money for his education but whenever he had gone for meeting his younger son, the respondent did not allow him to meet him.

(3.) BUT it appears that the appellant is not at all agreeable to reconstruct the marriage. It has been also contended that for long absence of cohabitation, etc., as is apparent from the records produced before this Court, the appellant is entitled to the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In addition thereto, Mr. S Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and in consideration of the Apex Court's decision in Samar Ghosh V. Jaya Ghosh, : (2007) 4 SCC 511 the appellant may be favoured with the decree of divorce.