Parthajit Majumder vs Anita Rani Barman

[1] Heard Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Ms. S. Banik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984 from the judgment dated 04.09.2018 delivered in Title Suit (Divorce) No.175 of 2016 by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura whereby the petition for dissolution of marriage subsisting between the parties as filed under Section 13(1)(iii)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 has been dismissed.

[3] In the judgment dated 04.09.2018, it has been observed that the appellant has failed to establish that the respondent has been suffering continuously for mental disorder of any kind or of such category, based on which a decree of divorce can be passed. That apart, it has been observed by the Judge, Family Court that the respondent by filing the written statement has denied all such allegations of her suffering from mental disorder. It would, as we think, be better if a part of the observation is reproduced. It has been observed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura as follows for dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage:

"But on perusal of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any material to support the claim of the petitioner that the respondent has been suffering from any kind of mental disorder. Mere allegation of the petitioner cannot suffice without producing any document showing that the respondent has been suffering from any kind of mental disorder since after her marriage."

[4] On the rival pleadings, for purpose of adjudication of the petition, the following points were determined by the Judge, Family Court:

"(I) Whether the instant suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?

(II) Whether the respondent has been suffering continuously and intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and of such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent?

(III) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce as prayed for?"

[4] From appreciation of the records, it appears that the appellant examined himself in support of the pleading that was placed by the appellant. Even no medical expert has been adduced in the proceeding at least to give credence to the said allegation. We could have dismissed this appeal on the face of the evidence as there is no evidence from the experts who are competent to determine whether someone is suffering from mental disorder. That apart, we find from the evidence of the appellant itself that the respondent has been serving under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF, in short). If she was really suffering from any mental disorder she would not have been allowed to continue in her service. Even there is no whisper as regards that she has been declared medically unfit by the said force. Certain unexpected conducts of the respondent have been noticed by us, but we are unable to hold the view that a woman who is serving in a force is expected to take all care of child, her as is expected from housewife. An Allegation to that extent therefore on the face of it, does not satisfy us to accept an additional ground of cruelty.

It may be noted further that the solitary ground that has been projected in the petition filed by the appellant is of mental disorder of that category for which the appellant is not expected to live in the marital relation with the respondent. Even there had been no attempt to prove the cruelty by conduct and as such, when Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel made a modest attempt in the alternative that even if the ground of mental disorder has not been proved, but the appellant has proved cruelty as serious matrimonial misconduct. Following the procedural law which is substantive in nature, it is observed that the pleadings must be definite inasmuch as the reliefs shall be based on such pleading so that the person who is opposing it can contest or dispute such pleading specifically. No ground of cruelty has made out in the entire petition. At this stage, we are not inclined to allow that ground to be resorted to.

[5] Ms. S. Banik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has made an attempt to drawn our attention to some financial transactions between the parties, but we are really surprised as no formal application in the proceeding has been made in this regard nor anything has been stated in the written statement filed by the respondent before the Family Court.

[6] In view of that, if there is any claim against the appellant, the respondent may pursue the remedy irrespective of what we have observed in this proceeding. Having observed thus, as we do not find any merit in this appeal, the appeal stands dismissed.

Draw the decree accordingly and thereafter send down the records.