DEBASHIS CHOUDHURY Vs. NIBEDITA CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) This appeal is preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court I, Kamrup, Guwahati ("the Family Court", in short) in F.C.(Civil) Case No. 216/2015. By the said judgment and order dated 14.12.2017, the learned Family Court dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant as the petitioner, under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("the Act", in short) seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

(3.) It is necessary to state the relevant facts, in brief, which led the appellant to institute the case, F.C.(Civil) Case No. 216/2015. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 17.06.1998 as per the rites and rituals of Hindu religion. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born to the couple on 18.07.1999. The relationship between the spouses was cordial initially. At the time of marriage, the respondent, though educated, was unemployed. Though both of them were reluctant about the respondent joining any service after the marriage but when the respondent got an opportunity to join the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), she decided to join the service due to pressure of her parents, to which the appellant had also agreed. After joining the Government service, the nature and conduct of the respondent had started changing and she became arrogant, picking up quarrels with the appellant on petty grounds. The attachment of the respondent towards the appellant started diminishing day by day. The appellant did not react to such change of the respondent believing that the respondent would be reformed automatically for the sake of their children and he went on accepting the repulsive behaviour of the respondent treating the same to be normal due to pressure of her duties in the office. The couple was blessed with a 2nd female child on 07.11.2003. But even after the birth of the 2nd child, the conduct and behavior of the respondent did not undergo any change and instead, the life of the appellant became nightmarish. The appellant who has his own land and house at Gotanagar, used to reside in a joint family property with his two brothers. In the building owned by the family, the appellant and his younger brother share the 1st floor. The appellant had allowed his married sister to stay temporarily in one part, out of three parts in the 2nd floor of the building. The appellant used to reside with the respondent and his two daughters in the 1st floor of the building. The torture of the respondent on the appellant did not confine to mental one but physical torture also became a regular affair in course of time, which compelled the appellant to arrange for a separate dwelling in the 1st floor of the building itself as he was forced to leave the society of the respondent. He was compelled to live separately since 15.06.2012 and the respondent even stopped preparing food for the appellant due to which he had to prepare his own daily meals himself. The entrance of the appellant to the part occupied by the respondent with the daughters, was completely restricted by her and it was used to be kept under lock and key from inside, particularly when the appellant was at home. The appellant has a fair price shop at Gotanagar and the same is the only source of his livelihood. The appellant had been bearing the expenses of the respondent and the daughters including the education expenses. Despite all efforts on his part to live happily, the respondent kept the belongings of the appellant outside the house without saying any word to the appellant and the appellant for the sake of maintaining the prestige of the family despite being so humiliated in the society, had kept his silence which the respondent appeared to have taken as his weakness. Being a fair price shop owner dealing in commodities, the appellant used to come back home at night usually around 10 p.m. The respondent was adamant about the appellant reaching home early and used to misbehave with the appellant regularly accusing about the appellant spending time with his girlfriends maintaining illicit relationships with them. On 08.03.2015 at about 09.45 p.m., when the appellant after arriving at his house, rang the calling bell just to inform the respondent to open the main entrance gate of the house, the respondent after opening the gate scolded the appellant in unimaginable filthy language. The appellant, who was with one of his relatives at that time, felt ashamed and humiliated and requested the respondent to control herself at which the respondent became more furious and attempted to attack the appellant with an iron stick. The appellant had a narrow escape on that day due to intervention of the relative. Incidents of physical assault on the appellant by the respondent were plenty and it became a habit for the respondent to use defamatory and humiliating words against the appellant whenever they come face to face. The respondent priding herself to be a Government employee drawing higher salary, used to laugh at the petitioner as a petty shop keeper without any status in the society. The appellant stated that the respondent had treated him with cruelty, both physically and mentally, during all these years since after few months of the marriage and such cruelty which were beyond the limit of tolerance, had made it impossible for him to continue marital relationship any longer as it had become unsafe and dangerous to the risk and health of the appellant. The appellant had learnt that the respondent had made plan secretly to construct a house on a plot of land belonging to her. Because of the conduct of the respondent which had lowered the status and dignity of the appellant in the society, the appellant had asserted that he was entitled to a decree of divorce. The withdrawal of the respondent from the matrimonial obligation of cohabitation between the appellant was termed as willful and cruelty of the highest degree. When on some occasions, the appellant approached the respondent for a sexual relationship, the respondent used to warn and threaten the appellant of lodging a complaint before the police alleging rape. Having realized that chance of restoration of the conjugal life between them as remote, the appellant stated to have instituted the petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.