SANGITA RAJBONGSHI Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AAR Karim, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The respondent husband had filed a complaint case, which was registered as CR No.71/2018 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. In the complaint petition, it is the allegation of the respondent husband that he was married with the petitioner wife on 28.11.2017 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. But after the marriage the accused persons, which included the mother and father of the petitioner wife wanted to keep him as a son-in-law in their house, to which he refused. Upon such differences having arisen between the husband and the wife, the petitioner wife along with her parents came to the house of the respondent husband, who had welcomed them and was trying to prepare food for their lunch. While the respondent husband preparing the food, the petitioner wife entered his room and took away some ornaments and some cash along with the TV set. When later on, the younger brother of the respondent husband communicated with the petitioner wife on his mobile phone, she told him that she had taken away the item concerned. Then the brother of the respondent husband tried to convince the petitioner wife to come back and continue with their conjugal life, but the same did not materialize. In the circumstance, the present complaint petition had been preferred by the respondent husband by making the allegation that the petitioner wife had committed the offences under Section 120(B)/379/406/420/34 IPC.

(3.) It is an admitted position that the petitioner and the respondent had got married and they lived together as husband and wife. During the course of the marriage, they had shared a house where the household items cannot be said to have been belonging only to the husband or only to the wife. The allegation is that after the differences in view had occurred, the wife came and took away some golden ornaments and some cash and the TV. If it is so and after there is a marital dispute between the wife and the husband, it was for the parties to approach the appropriate forum and apportion the property that they have in common while their marriage was in sustenance.