DEBRATA BHAUMIK Vs. SARMISHTHA SAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.3.92 passed by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (Divorce) 1 of 1991 dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce.

(2.) Appellant was a private tutor of the respondent. For that purpose he used to visit the house of respondent's parents. During that time respondent fell in love with the appellant. They decided to marry. However, there was some resistence from the parents of the respondent. Ultimately respondent's parents agreed. Their marriage was solemnised at the residential quarter of the father of the respondent at Rabindra Palli, Agartala. The marriage was solemnised on 23.1.84.

(3.) Respondent's case is that after the solemnisation of the marriage she went to the matrimonial house i.e. the house of her in-laws. Before and at the time of marriage, she had all the rosy picture of a very happy and prosperous married life. However, the picture did not remain as bright as it was. It started fading. For various reasons they could not lead a happy married life. They used to pick up quarrel and their staying together became almost impossible. According to the respondent, some time after the marriage, she discovered that the members of the family of the appellant were not normal in their behaviour. She learnt that the younger brother of the appellant was a schizophrenic patient. The elder brother had been suffering from mental disorder and he was treated by the doctors of G.B. Hospital and later under Mandunku Mental Hospital in West Bengal for some time; This was not known to the respondent before the marriage nor it was told to her by the appellant. Respondent later also discovered that both the families were not of the same standard. Her father was a high official of the Government of Tripura. The members of her family were closely connected with various cultural activities of the State. She obtained B.Sc. (Hons.) degree in 1986 from Calcutta University. Thereafter, she was admitted in M.Sc. Classes in Calcutta. Though she wanted to stay at Agartala with her husband she was forced by her husband to go to Calcutta for studying M.Sc. Even at the time when she was a student of B.Sc. she was kept at the house of her parents against her desire. After the marriage she was not allowed to enjoy her marital life with her husband. She was subjected to various inhumane mental torture. She was never treated as wife by her husband. He rather behaved with her as a strict teacher. In Calcutta she was kept in a room alone at a dirty locality where no decent person could live. In spite of her protest she was compelled to stay there. There was nobody to look after her even at the time when she was ill. Later in 1987 she was asked to stay in a hostel where appellant used to visit her. On one occasion the appellant asked the Respondent to see her in a hotel where he normally used to stay. On arrival at the hotel she found her husband-appellant in a drunken condition. The appellant compelled the respondent to take liquor knowing fully well that she had been suffering from chronic gestitis and that she was averse to taking liquor.Even the respondent's in-laws did not treat her properly. After obtaining the degree in M.Sc. she returned to Agartala and was compelled to stay with her parents. At that time she was threatened by her husband as well as in-laws with dire consequences. At the persuasion of the father of the respondent she went to the house of the appellant with a. view to staying with him, but her life was made miserable there. Because of this, she had to go back as it became almost impossible for her to live with her husband. Thereafter, both the appellant and the respondent began to stay separately. As the marriage did not click and as it became almost impossible for the respondent to stay with the appellant, the respondent approached the District Court for a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for short 'the Act.'