BINA CHAKRABORTY Vs. RANJIT KR MAJUMDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dated 25.5.98 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (RCR) 30 of 97 allowing the suit with direction to the appellant-wife herein to go to the house of her husband, the respondent herein, within a period of one month and to live in the matrimonial house as husband and wife is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The respondent-husband herein who is a class-IV employee under the Government married the appellant herein on 22.9.88. But the conjugal tie stumbled from discords during a span of four years. They have no issue. The respondent-husband has 3 sisters to support by his meagre income. According to his version, the appellant used to leave his house and stay with her parents on her whims without caring the conjugal obligation on her part. He was, thus, deprived of the care and happiness which as a spouse he could reasonably expect from her. On the contrary, her irrational behaviour generated bitterness only straining their conjugal relation. On 12.7.92, she left her matrimonial home finally for her parents house. When all attempts on his part to bring her back failed, the respondent-husband issued notice to her in writing on 30.8.93 to return home and live a conjugal life with him. Though she received the notice on 4.9.93, she preferred not to respond. Instead, she approached a family counselling centre where he also attended after being summoned. During the course of counselling she persistently put forward a condition that the respondent should agree to live with her separately from his sisters. Such a proposal disowning his liabilities to maintain his sisters was not acceptable to him. As the counselling proved to be futile, he filed a divorce suit against her which was registered as TS (Divorce) No. 03 of 1994 on grounds of desertion, cruelty and separate living for more than a year on the part of the appellant-wife. She contested the suit and claimed interim maintenance in a prayer under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, 'the Act'). According to the respondent-husband, the said court allowed interim maintenance and directed him to pay Rs. 5,000/- which he failed to pay as Ms salary was not enough to comply with the said order. Because of the non-compliance, the divorce petition was dismissed. Thereafter, he has approached this court (Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala) by filing the instant suit for restitution of conjugal right.

(3.) In the impugned judgment decreeing the suit as noted above, the learned Addl. District Judge observed that the appellant-wife therein did not contest the suit by filing written statement for which the case was fixed for experte hearing. According to him, he made several attempts to reconcile the matter, but the appellant-wife herein did not attend, though the husband appeared every time. On the date of exparte hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant-wife herein appeared before the learned trial court and prayed for cross-examining the respondent husband. The said prayer was allowed and the husband was examined and cross-examined. Thereafter, considering the fact that the husband and wife had been living separately since 12.7.92 though the husband was willing to live with his wife, a direction was given for restitution of conjugal right. The relevant part of the observation which is now, in our opinion, necessary for adverting to the controversy raised in the appeal may be quoted as follows :