NARAYAN ROY Vs. JAMUNA DEY ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short, the 1984 Act) by the appellant husband is directed against the judgment dated 12-10-2004 passed by the learned Family Court, Agartala, in TS (Divorce) No. 27 of 2000 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant husband praying for dissolution of marriage between him and the respondent wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) A petition under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the 1955 Act) was filed by the appellant before the Family Court at Agartala, which was registered and numbered as TS (Divorce) No. 27 of 2000, seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage between him and the respondent, on the ground of cruelty and desertion stating inter alia that from the day of performing the ceremony, of 'Boubhat' (the day when bride and bride and bride groom start living together after solemnization of their marriage) the respondent started ill-treating him, his parents and other relatives and on the following morning she left the matrimonial home without intimating anybody in the house. On extensive search being carried out by appellant husband accompanied by his elder sister Smt. Mukti Roy and one Sri Sudarshan Majumder, respondent was found in her father's home and on being requested to return to her matrimonial home, she refused to accede to their request and rather requested the elder sister of the appellant to arrange to get their marriage dissolved. Subsequently, though the mother and brothers of respondent wife took her back to the matrimonial home and then they started living together, the respondent-wife refused to sleep and cohabit with the appellant husband and on 5-11-1998, when appellant tried to force the respondent wife to cohabit with him, she gave a note in writing by stating that she was not willing to sleep with him as she considers him as a mad man. It had further been pleaded that in spite of all this, there were accidental cohabitations on 3 or 4 occasions resulting in respondent-wife's pregnancy. After 3 months of pregnancy, her mother took her to their home and after about 15 days when she came back to the matrimonial home, it was noticed that she terminated her pregnancy without the consent of appellant-husband. The further contention of the appellant in the said petition was that the respondent wife used to misbehave with her in-laws and other relatives, return home very late at every night on the pretext of attending to her, political activities, refuse to perform her day-to-day household activities and even had assaulted her mother-in-law physically. It was the further contention of the appellant that at one night she left her matrimonial home with an unknown person and did not return on that night and eventually on 25-12-1998, she finally deserted the matrimonial home by taking all the belongings with her by giving a writing in presence of witnesses that she would live separately in future and since then, she has been living separately. A further allegation had also been made that on 8th April, 2000, the respondent assaulted the appellant's elder sister Smt. Chitra Roy and snatched away her gold chain and Rs. 2500/-, for which the latter filed a complaint case being CR No. 1239/2000 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura at Agartala.

(3.) The said proceeding was contested by the respondent by filing her written statement denying all the allegations made by the appellant and making counter allegations by contending that with the hope of having a happy and peaceful conjugal life though she married the appellant, but soon after their marriage her dream and aspiration suffered a rude shock when the appellant was found to be addicted to liquor and drugs. The appellant used to torture her, both mentally and physically and the intensity of torture increased with every passing day. According to the respondent, the appellant used to return home in late hours at every night in intoxicated state and thereafter, tortured her both physically and mentally and was not interested in maintaining a normal conjugal relationship with her due to the illicit relationship with his brother's wife. It has further been pleaded that the appellant was not interested to cohabit with the respondent and there being no cohabitation, there was no question of pregnancy and termination of such pregnancy. According to respondent, on 14-12-1998, she was mercilessly beaten and dragged out of the house by the appellant compelling her to stay outside on that night and despite her repeated requests, she was not allowed to enter into the house. According to the respondent, she was eventually driven out of the matrimonial house by the appellant.