BIDYUT KUMAR SAHA Vs. TAPA SAHAMAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dated 1-6-01 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in T. S. (Divorce) No. 14 of 98 dismissing the prayer of the petitioner-husband for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife has been assailed in the present appeal filed by him.

(2.) We have heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Bannerjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The factual matrix giving rise to the divorce proceeding may be briefly stated thus : On 30-1-97, the appellant and the respondent married according to Hindu rites and customs. But within a very short spell, to be more precise, from the very beginning, the marital relation suffered hiccups and stumbled again and again. It is the allegation of the petitioner that when he went to see the bride before marriage, he was not treated well by the respondent's father and other relatives who had made several queries regarding his place of birth and other particulars. He felt as if he was placed before a hostile interview board. After the introductory experience, he became unwilling to marry the respondent. But her brother later met him and sought unconditional apology for the treatment meted out to him. In addition, appellant's brother-in-law Gurupada Saha who was the match-maker persuaded him to agree to the proposal and accordingly the marriage ceremony was performed. At the very inception of the conjugal life, the appellant again became unhappy with the behaviour of his in laws. The ceremony known as 'dwiragaman' which is the normal social custom in every Hindu marriage to be performed within ten days from the date of marriage, could not be held due to reluctance of his in laws.The friends and relatives of the appellant who accompanied him to the marriage in the house of the parents of the respondent were not treated well which had the after-effect in the mind of the appellant when he faced unpalatable remarks from them.