IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT...

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT JORHAT.

Present : Mrs. Suchandra Bhattacharjee,

Addl. District Judge, Jorhat.

TITLE SUIT (MARRIAGE) 89 OF 2013

Smt. Nabanita Sharma

Wife of Sri Subhrajit Baruah

R/O A.T.Road, Pulibor

P.S- Pulibor, District-Jorhat…………….. Petitioner

- Vs-

Sri Subhrajit Baruah

S/O Sri Debananda Baruah

R/O Nazira,P.S.Nazira

District- Sivasagar,Assam .………….. Respondent.

Advocates who Appeared in this case:

For the petitioner - Mr. B. Saikia.

For the respondent – Ms. M. Barua.

Date of hearing : 23.05.2016.

Date of Judgment : 20.06.2016.

J U D G M E N T.

1] The petitioner Smt. Nabanita Sharma filed the instant petition under

section 13 of (1) (ia) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage.

2

2] The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between her and the

respondent was solemnized on 09.02.2011, as per Hindu rites and rituals, at

Joydole, Sivasagar and thereafter, the marriage was registered at the office of

the District Marriage Officer, Sivasagar. The petitioner at the time of her

marriage was working as a subject teacher at Don Bosco School at Tezu,

Arunachal Pradesh and apart from that she was also working as part time

general announcer in All India Radio Centre at Tezu but as the respondent and

his family members, prior to the solemnization of their marriage, insisted her to

leave her job therefore, she left her job. After the marriage both the petitioner

and the respondent briefly stayed at Nazira, Sivasagar and then on 18.02.2011,

both of them went to Delhi and stayed in a rented house over there. Since the

day of solemnization of the marriage, the respondent gradually started to abuse

the petitioner with filthy language and used to torture her mentally and

physically. The respondent used to come to his residence late night in drunken

state and used to abuse the petitioner. The respondent is a habitual drinker and

regularly assaulted the petitioner on demand of dowry. The respondent

frequently used filthy language and verbally abused the petitioner for not being

able to meet his dowry demands and refused to take care of her well being. On

16.04.2011, the sister of the respondent and her husband visited the petitioner

and the respondent in Delhi. The petitioner with an intention to amend the

behaviour of the respondent informed his sister about the respondent’s behavior

and his attitude of refusing to give any expenses to her for daily household

expenditure but the respondent after the departure of his sister on, 24.04.2011,

came late at night and in vengeance assaulted the petitioner violently. The

respondent increased the mental and physical torture over the petitioner and his

demand for dowry from the petitioner and her family members intensified day by

day. In the meantime, the respondent informed the petitioner that he had to

make an official visit to U.S.A. on 24.06.2011, and accordingly the respondent

hurriedly sent the petitioner to her in law’s residence at Nazira by arranging Air

Tickets. The respondent promised the petitioner that he will return after 15 days

and take back the petitioner after returning from U.S.A. But surprisingly, the

respondent after returning from his official visit stopped making any

communication with the petitioner at all. The petitioner at her in law’s residence

was daily subjected to intolerable cruelty by her father in law and mother in law,

they used to lock her in a tiny room, when they contacted with the respondent

3

over phone and also did not allow her to talk with the respondent and rebuked

her saying that the respondent is not willing to resume conjugal life with her

unless his dowry demands are satisfied. When the petitioner refused to meet the

dowry demand, she was forcefully sent back to Jorhat to her parental home on

03.07.2011 by her in laws. But the petitioner for the sake of her conjugal life,

after staying at her parental home for some days, came to Nazira to her

matrimonial home, brushing aside all the cruelties of the respondent and his

family members and tried to move ahead but then also the petitioner was

subjected to continuous physical and mental torture by the respondent’s family

members. The respondent during the said period never interacted with the

petitioner but used to contact his family members from Delhi over phone and

used to abuse the entire family members of the petitioner in filthy language and

threatened to meet the dowry demands otherwise to face grave and dire

consequences. The mother in law of the petitioner along with a lady who stayed

in their rented house also occasionally tortured the petitioner and beat her with

bamboo sticks. That the petitioner inspite of such intolerable cruelties still

performed her matrimonial duties with an intention to lead her conjugal life but

on 20.10.2011, the respondent came to Nazira from Delhi and physically tortured

the petitioner in their bed room with slaps, kicks and blows and also attempted

to strangulate her to death but the petitioner somehow managed to rescue

herself. On 23.10.2011, the respondent called the entire family members of the

petitioner over phone and asked them to come to Nazira. When the petitioner

family members arrived there, the respondent and his parents again raised the

dowry demand, when the mother of the petitioner showed her inability to meet

the said demand then the respondent turned violent and humiliated the mother

of the petitioner and her brother with abusive language and threatened them

with dire consequence. On 27.10.2011, the respondent suddenly returned to

Delhi without consulting with the petitioner and left her traumatized. On 28th

October,2011 the parents of the respondent brought the petitioner to her

parental home and dropped her there. The petitioner in the month of November

2011, had undergone an operation of uterus and informed the respondent and

his family members about her deteriorating health condition but neither the

respondent nor his family members bore a single penny for her treatment and

even did not bother to inquire about her health. The respondent till date never

came to the petitioner to take her back to his society and never paid any amount

4

for her maintenance to her till date due to which the petitioner had to rely on her

old and ailing mother and compelled to live a penurious life. The petitioner has

no sufficient means and income of her own for which she is facing immense

financial hardship and living a miserable life whereas the respondent earns more

than Rs One lakh per month as salary.

3] After receiving summon the respondent appeared and contested the case

by filing written statement together with counter claim. In the written statement

it is stated that the instant petition is not maintainable, there is no cause of

action for the case and further denied the entire allegations as brought by the

petitioner against him and his family members. It is alleged inter alia that the

respondent works in a private company and nature of his work demands almost

24 hours attention and he is required to attend the conference call to manage

the clients in U.S.A for which he used to come from his office by 9.30 p.m. to 10

p.m. but not at late night as alleged by the petitioner. It is alleged that the

petitioner is arrogant, aggressive and rude by nature and has no respect towards

the respondent as well as his other family members. In the month of April,2011

the respondent’s sister and brother in law went to Delhi and then they visited the

house of the respondent but the temperamental and rude conduct of the

petitioner towards the respondent and them as well compelled them to leave the

house of the respondent. In the month of June 2011, the respondent intimated

the petitioner about his official tour and on mutual consent the respondent sent

the petitioner to his parental abode at Nazira by air, with a promise to bring her

back to Delhi soon after his arrival in India, but the petitioner expressed her

reluctance to return back to Delhi due to hot season and as she had been

suffering from some gynecological problem. The petitioner was in the habit of

undermining the status of her in laws and always ignored their presence at

home. From the very beginning of the marriage, the respondent and his parents

noticed that the petitioner most of the time was busy with her cell phone and

when she was at Nazira she used to discuss idle talk with the tenants who

resides nearby the residence of the respondent at Nazira and if the parents of

the respondent protested against her such activities she used to become

aggressive and insulted them with foul language. On 03.07.2011, the mother of

the petitioner came to Nazira to take the petitioner to their residence as a part of

the ritual of marriage and she accordingly was sent by her in laws to her parental

5

home. Again in the month of September, the petitioner went to her mother’s

place as she was required to undergo medical treatment of her ailment. In the

month of October 2011, the respondent came to his residence at Nazira and

stayed for about 10(ten) days together with the petitioner. On that occasion

when the respondent asked the petitioner to accompany him to Delhi, the

petitioner refused the proposal on the ground of her illness. In the month of

November 2011, the petitioner intimated the respondent that she had to undergo

a surgery for her ailment but as during then one of the parental uncles of the

respondent died, the respondent requested the petitioner to defer the date of her

operation but the petitioner without any further information underwent surgery

in Jorhat. Though the said act of petitioner, depressed the respondent, yet the

respondent sent his sister to enquire about the health condition of the petitioner

at Jorhat but the petitioner humiliated the respondent’s sister and scolded all the

family members of the respondent in filthy language. The petitioner, after her

operation, stopped to respond the respondent and thereafter finally without any

information, left her matrimonial home on her own will and in the month of

March 2012, the petitioner filed number of criminal case against the respondent

and his old ailing parents. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the instant suit.

The respondent in the counter claim filed u/s 23(A) of the Hindu Marriage

Act 1955, stated inter alia, that the petitioner on trivial issues exhibited her

arrogant conduct towards the respondent and used to undermine the status of

her in laws by ignoring their presence at home. The indifferent attitude and the

temperamental behavior of the petitioner caused immense mental suffering to

the respondent. The petitioner during her stay at Delhi used to quite often

misbehave with the respondent and her behaviour towards the respondent was

not congenial to lead a happy and healthy married life. Their marital relation got

further strained when the petitioner lodged FIR in the Nazira police station

against the respondent together with his old ailing parents and thereafter she

initiated criminal proceedings one after another against the respondent and his

family members with false accusations, which are pending before the different

court of law at Sivasagar and Jorhat. The respondent just after marriage noticed

that the petitioner used to sometimes keep herself aloof and even does not used

to exchange any word with the respondent, gradually, the respondent gathered

that the petitioner has been suffering from some Gynaecological problem, which

6

the petitioner and her family members concealed at the time of marriage, and

after knowing the same the respondent suggested the petitioner to go for

medical treatment at Apollo Hospital Delhi but the petitioner expressed her

strong desire that she will undergo medical treatment at Jorhat and not at Delhi.

The petitioner often used to go out of the residence, while staying in Delhi, for

marketing or for other purposes without intimating the respondent for which the

respondent tried to make her understand about her safety and security in the

city like Delhi. But the petitioner instead of giving her mind to the advise of the

respondent protested the same demonstrating her temper. The petitioner even

threatened the respondent that she would expose him through Electronic media.

4] The petitioner against the counter claim, as filed by the respondent, filed

written statement stating that there is no cause of action for the counter claim

filed by the respondent. It is stated inter alia that the petitioner always tried to

live up to the expectation of the respondent and his family members. She even

gave up her lucrative post of teaching in Arunachal Pradesh and the job of part

time announcer of the All India Radio Arunachal Pradesh for the sake of happy

conjugal life. The petitioner was always a responsible spouse and showed utmost

respect to the respondent and his family members since the day of her marriage.

The allegations regarding the petitioner being of indifferent attitude and having

temperamental behavior and arrogance are nothing but outcome of the

respondent’s evil mind. The petitioner never misbehaved with the respondent

during her stay in Delhi. The respondent is a sadistic type of person and used to

torture the petitioner out of his frustration and in a state of drunkenness during

the stay in Delhi. The physical relationship between the petitioner and the

respondent almost ceased to exist as the respondent is incapable of establishing

any physical relationship with the petitioner and out of his frustration he used to

torture the petitioner in an inhuman manner. The petitioner after being subjected

to prolong intolerable cruelty at the hands of the petitioner in Delhi and Nazira

which was fuelled by the indulgence of her in law was left with no other option

but to file cases against the petitioner. The petitioner’s hope and aspiration of a

happy married life turned into nightmare and being left with no other option she

sought the help of law. The petitioner never suffered from any Gynecological

problems as alleged neither the respondent ever suggested the petitioner for any

medical treatment at Apollo Hospital, Delhi as alleged. The petitioner soon after

7

the marriage discovered that the respondent is an impotent person and he is

incapable of any physical relationship for which the respondent out of his

frustration always tortured the petitioner physically. The petitioner never used to

go out of her residence in Delhi without informing the respondent rather she was

not allowed to venture outside her residence by the respondent and even not

allowed to talk and mingle with other people.

5] On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed:

1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit ?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable ?

3. Whether the opposite party (respondent) subjected the petitioner

to cruelty ?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree for dissolution of

marriage between her and the opposite party (respondent)?

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief/reliefs?

Issues in counter claim;

1. Whether there is any cause of action for the counter claim ?

2. Whether the petitioner subjected the opposite party (respondent)

to cruelty ?

3. Whether the opposite party (respondent) is entitled to decree for

dissolution of marriage between him and the petitioner ?

4. Whether the opposite party is entitled to any other relief/reliefs ?

6] The petitioner to prove her case examined herself and adduced evidence

of her mother, Smt. Anupama Sharma. The respondent examined himself and his

father, Sri Debananda Barua in support of his contention.

7] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the respondent and

perused the entire materials on record.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF;

Let at the outset, issues framed in respect of the pleadings of original

petition and written statement be taken for decision.

8

8] Issue No.1: Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

Cause of action is a bundle of facts, the proof of which, entitles

the petitioner, to get the relief as sought for. In the instant case, petitioner is

seeking decree of divorce against the respondent, on the ground that the

respondent subjected her with cruelty and to establish the said fact, petitioner

has brought various facts on record, the proof of which, appears to entitle her to

the decree of divorce as sought for.

Hence, this court is of the opinion that there is cause of action for the

suit. Accordingly, the instant issue is answered in affirmative.

9] Issue no.2 : Whether the suit is maintainable?

It appears that though the respondent in his written statement stated that

the instant suit is not maintainable in law as well as in facts but failed to

substantiate the same by adducing any evidence or any other material.

Hence, this court is of the opinion that the suit is maintainable.

Accordingly, the instant issue is answered in affirmative.

10] Issue no. 3: Whether the opposite party (respondent) subjected the

petitioner to cruelty?

It appears that the petitioner in her evidence deposed that since the day

of her marriage, the respondent started to abuse her with filthy language and

used to torture her mentally and physically. The respondent used to come to his

residence late night in drunken state and used to abuse her. She deposed that

the respondent is a habitual drinker and used to regularly assault her on demand

of dowry and refused to take care of her well being. It appears that the

petitioner to prove the fact of being physically assaulted by the respondent

deposed about a particular incident took place on 24.04.2011, when the

respondent assaulted her violently as she shared about the behavior of the

respondent towards her, with his sister, when she came to visit them in Delhi. It

appears that the respondent while cross examining the petitioner failed to

dislodge the said fact rather it appears the petitioner while getting cross

examined reiterated that the respondent, after the departure of her sister in law,

9

assaulted her with a T.V remote and gagged her mouth with a pillow, and the

said fact nowhere appears to have been challenged.

The perusal of evidence of the petitioner further reveals that the

respondent, on 24.06.2011 sent her to his home at Nazira as he was supposed to

make an official visit to U.S.A, with a promise to bring her back after returning

from U.S.A. but after returning from his official visit he stopped making any

communication with her at all. The petitioner further brought the fact that

though the respondent used to contact his family members from Delhi over

phone but never interacted with her. She further deposed that on 20.10.2011,

the respondent came to Nazira from Delhi and physically tortured her in their bed

room with slaps, kicks and blows and also attempted to strangulate her to death

but she somehow managed to rescue herself and on 23.10.2011, the respondent

called the family members of the petitioner over phone and asked them to come

to Nazira and then the respondent and his parents again raised the dowry

demand and when the mother of the petitioner showed her inability to meet the

said demand then the respondent turned violent and humiliated her mother and

the brother with abusive language and threatened them with dire consequence

and on 27.10.2011, the respondent suddenly returned to Delhi leaving her

traumatized without even having any consultation with her.

The perusal of entire evidence on record reveals that it is an admitted

fact that the petitioner was sent by the respondent to his home at Nazira on

24.06.11, as the respondent was going to U.S.A, for official visit and it is also an

admitted fact that thereafter the petitioner was not taken to Delhi. It appears

that the petitioner categorically deposed that the respondent after sending her to

his home at Nazira stopped to communicate with her and the said fact nowhere

appears to have been challenged or denied by the respondent either while cross

examining the petitioner or while adducing his evidence. The perusal of evidence

of the respondent nowhere reveals that after sending the petitioner to his home

he ever communicated with her.

It appears that the petitioner categorically deposed that on 20.10.2011,

the respondent came to Nazira from Delhi and physically tortured her in their bed

room with slaps, kicks and blows and also attempted to strangulate her to death

but she somehow managed to rescue herself and on 23.10.2011, the respondent

10

called the family members of the petitioner over phone and asked them to come

to Nazira and then the respondent humiliated her mother and the brother with

abusive language and threatened them with dire consequence and then on

27.10.11, the respondent suddenly returned to Delhi by leaving her and without

even consulting with her. It appears that the fact of getting humiliated by the

respondent has been duly corroborated by the mother of the petitioner. It

appears that though the mother of the petitioner while getting cross examined

admitted that she forgot the exact date when she was called by the respondent

to his home but she categorically reiterated that the respondent after calling her

to his home badly insulted her. It appears that the arrival of the respondent at

his home in the month of October 2011 is an admitted fact and calling the family

members of the petitioner by the respondent to his home is also an admitted fact

and not taking the petitioner alongwith him to Delhi is further an admitted fact,

though it appears that the respondent in his evidence brought two reasons for

not taking the petitioner to Delhi, firstly, as petitioner refused to go with him due

to climatic change in Delhi and secondly that as she was not well. But it appears

that while cross examining the petitioner only one reason is brought for not

taking the petitioner to Delhi and which is, that she refused to go with the

respondent as she was not well, which appears to have been categorically denied

by the petitioner.

It is pertinent to mention that the respondent in denial of the petitioner’s

case/allegations mainly brought the fact that the petitioner is arrogant,

temperamental, quarrelsome and rude in nature and rather she has inflicted

torture on the respondent due to her such nature and by instituting false cases

against him and his parents. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that it is an

admitted fact that in June 2011, the respondent sent the petitioner to his home

at Nazira as he was supposed to go to U.S.A, with a promise to bring her back

immediately as soon as he returns and the said admitted fact clearly reveals that

the respondent had no problem with the petitioner during her stay with him. It

further appears that the respondent in his evidence categorically deposed that in

the month of October 2011, he tried to bring the petitioner back but failed to

bring her back as she refused to come with him and the said fact further appears

to negate the fact of the petitioner being arrogant, quarrelsome or rude in

nature.

11

It further pertinent to mention that though the respondent brought the

fact that the petitioner harassed him and his parents by instituting false cases

against them but it appears that the respondent also failed to adduce any cogent

evidence to prove that the cases instituted against the respondent is in fact

instituted with false allegations.

Hence, the evidence, as adduced by the petitioner, in the light of the

facts as admitted by the respondent, appears to have proved the fact of the

petitioner being treated with cruelty by the respondent.

Hence, keeping in view the same, the instant issue is answered in

affirmative.

11] Issue no. 5: Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree for dissolution

of marriage?

Keeping in view the decision of issue no.3, this court is of the opinion that

the petitioner is entitled to get decree of divorce against the respondent.

Hence, keeping in view the same the instant issue is answered in

affirmative.

12] Issue no. 5 Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief or

reliefs?

The perusal of relief as sought by the petitioner does not appear

to entitle her to any other relief.


negative.

Let the, issues in respect of the pleadings of counter claim be taken for

decision.

13] Issue no 1: Whether there is any cause of action for the counter

claim?

Cause of action is a bundle of facts, the proof of which, entitles

one, to the relief as sought by him or her. In the instant case, respondent

through counter claim is seeking decree of divorce against the petitioner, on the

12

ground that the petitioner subjected him with cruelty and to establish the said

fact, he has brought certain facts on record, the proof of which, appears to

entitle him to the decree of divorce as sought for.

Hence, this court is of the opinion that there is cause of action for the

counter claim.

Accordingly, the instant issue is answered in affirmative.

14] Issue no.2: Whether the petitioner subjected the opposite party

(respondent) to cruelty?

The perusal of evidence of respondent reveals that the facts as brought

by him to substantiate the fact of being treated with cruelty by the petitioner is

that the petitioner was arrogant, always misbehaving, quarrelsome and rude

towards him and his parents and instituted one after another false cases against

them.

The evidence on record clearly reveals that the petitioner and the

respondent lead their marital life together about four months i.e. till June 2011

and the evidence on record further reveals that the reason for which the

respondent and the petitioner departed in June 2011 had nothing to do with the

aforesaid alleged nature of the petitioner. The evidence of record clearly reveals

that it is an admitted fact that the respondent in June 2011, sent the petitioner

to his home at Nazira as he was supposed to go to U.S.A, with a promise to bring

her back immediately as soon as he returns and the said admitted fact clearly

reveals that the respondent during the aforesaid period of leading his conjugal

life with the petitioner had no problem with her. It further appears that the

respondent in his evidence categorically deposed that in the month of October

2011, he tried to bring the petitioner back but failed to bring her back as she

refused to come with him and the said fact further suggests that the fact as

brought by the respondent that the petitioner was arrogant, misbehaving and

rude towards him does not hold any merit. Moreover, the evidence of respondent

very clearly reveals that in the month of October when he came to his home he

tried to take the petitioner alongwith him but as she refused to go with him

therefore, he could not take her and the said fact further appears to negate the

13

fact as brought by the respondent in respect of the aforesaid alleged nature of

the petitioner.

It is further pertinent to mention that though the respondent has deposed

that the petitioner harassed him by instituting various cases against him with

false accusations but it appears that the respondent failed to adduce any cogent

evidence to prove that the cases instituted against the respondent is in fact

instituted with false allegation. It appears that the respondent though while cross

examining the petitioner gave certain suggestions to her to establish the falsity of

the case instituted by her against the respondent, which are categorically denied

by the petitioner but it appears to prove the same the respondent failed to

adduce any cogent documentary evidence.

Hence, keeping in view the evidence on record, this court is of opinion

that the respondent failed to adduce cogent evidence to prove the fact of being

treated with cruelty by the petitioner.

Accordingly, in view of the same the instant issue is answered in

negative.

15] Issue no.3: Whether the opposite party (respondent) is entitled to

decree for dissolution of marriage between him and the petitioner?

Keeping in view the decision of issue no.2, this court is of the opinion that

the respondent is not entitled to get the decree of divorce against the petitioner.


negative.

16] Issue no. 4 : Whether the opposite party (respondent) is entitled to

any other relief/reliefs ?

The relief as sought by the respondent does not appear to entitle him to

any other relief.


negative.

17] Keeping in view the decision of issue no.3, framed on the basis of the

pleadings of the original petition and written statement, the marriage between

14

the petitioner Smt. Nabanita Sharma and respondent Sri Shubrajit Baruah is

hereby dissolved. Accordingly, the instant suit is decreed, on contest.

However, keeping in view the decision of issue no. 2, framed on the basis

of the pleadings of the counter claim filed by the respondent and written

statement of the petitioner, the counter claim filed by the respondent stands

dismissed, on contest.

18] Let the decree of divorce between Smt. Nabanita Sharma (petitioner) and

Sri Shubhrajit Baruah (respondent), be prepared accordingly.

19] Let the decree be prepared accordingly.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 20th day of

June, 2016.


Dictated & corrected by me:


Transcribed & typed by: Sri Dambaroodhar Bora, [Stenographer]

15

ORDER

20.06.2016 Petitioner as well the respondent is represented by learned

counsel.

Judgment is prepared on separate sheets and tagged with

the case record. The same is delivered in the open court

today.

Keeping in view the decision of issue no.3, framed on the

basis of the pleadings of the original petition and written

statement, the marriage between the petitioner Smt.

Nabanita Sharma and respondent Sri Shubrajit Baruah is

hereby dissolved. Accordingly, the instant suit is decreed,

on contest.

However, keeping in view the decision of issue

no.2, framed on the basis of the pleadings of the counter

claim filed by the respondent and written statement of the

petitioner, the counter claim filed by the respondent stands

dismissed, on contest.

Let the decree of divorce between Smt. Nabanita Sharma

(petitioner) and Sri Shubhrajit Baruah (respondent), be

prepared accordingly.

Let the decree be prepared accordingly.


IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT...