SHRI HRISHIKESH TALUKDAR vs SMTI PURABI BAISHYA

This appeal by the husband - Hrishikesh Talukdar - is against the judgment and order dated 20.4.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family

Court No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in F.C.(Civil) Case No.686/2009 dismissing his suit for divorce filed against his wife - Smti Purabi Baishya.

The brief facts of the case are these. The appellant had a love affair with the respondent and when he was studying in the final year of MBBS in

the Guwahati Medical College & Hospital, he married the respondent in Kamakhya Temple on 14/9/2004. Since, at the time he had no source of

income, the couple started living in the house of adoptive father of the respondent. According to the appellant, after staying with him for about a

week, the respondent suddenly went to her father''s house at Barpeta and started living with her father who was transferred to Barpeta from

Guwahati. The appellant then moved to his Hostel No.4 in the Guwahati Medical College & Hospital and stayed there till 26/1/2006. It is alleged

that the respondent used to suspect him for having an extra-marital affair and in spite of his repeated endeavour to settle the differences and

remove her doubts, she did not agree to live with him. In the meantime, appellant also left for Karnataka to pursue further studies and taking

advantage of his absence, the respondent along with her father and some other persons approached the parents of the appellant and threatened

them with dire consequences. The father of the appellant then lodged a first information report at the Dispur Police Station on 7/3/2006. As a

retaliatory measure, the adoptive father of the respondent filed a first information report on 07/01/2007 against the appellant''s family and the

respondent after addressing a press conference also through various newspapers circulated false and baseless allegations against his family on

9/1/2007. In those newspaper reports and press conference rampant allegations were made that the respondent was treated with cruelty and her

life was also threatened by the appellant and as such, aspersions were cast on the appellant as well as his family members, which were proved to

be quite defamatory. Besides, after filing of the suit for divorce respondent and some persons assaulted him openly in public when he went to an

internet cafe, due to which he sustained injuries on his person apart from being publicly humiliated. A First Information Report was also lodged

about this incident by his father on 27.1.2010 and the same was duly registered. Such type of behaviour of the respondent, caused much hardship

and prejudice to the appellant as well as his family members, resulting such a situation that he could not live with the respondent any further and as

such, the appellant filed the suit for divorce as aforesaid.

The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter-alia that after marriage both started living in the house of her father as

the appellant had no income at the point of time, and it is her adoptive father, who always supported the appellant by providing monetary help for

meeting day-to-day expenses as well as for his further studies outside Assam. According to her, her adoptive father bore the expenses for his

travel by flight to New Delhi, where he intended to participate in some coaching classes. She also alleged that the appellant used to demand dowry

from her, such as a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing plot of land, a car, home theatre, television set, Italian furniture and a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, and her adoptive father was called for discussion in this regard. It is further alleged that the adoptive father of the

respondent paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.30,000/- to the appellant for taking coaching classes in New Delhi. The appellant on the other hand,

did not take her to the matrimonial home at the instigation of his family members and the brother-in-law of the respondent also went to the house of

the appellant on many occasions to settle the differences. But the family members of the appellant did not give any information about the

whereabouts of the appellant and never tried to settle the disputes. The respondent also contended that when she got pregnant, the appellant

forcefully made her abort the child on 10/02/2005 and as such she was treated with utmost cruelty. Finding no other alternative, she approached

the Axom Poriyal Paramarkhadan Kendra and Axom Pradeshik Mahila Samity at Guwahati. According to her, she did hold the press conference

only to know the whereabouts of the appellant. She also stated that she does not wish to break the marriage and is still willing to stay with the

appellant and as such, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Both the parties adduced their respective evidence. Appellant examined himself as PW- 1 and also his father -Mahim Chandra Talukdar as

PW-2 and mother- Biroja Talukdar as PW-3 whereas the respondent examined herself as DW-1 and her brother-in-law- Sri Jayanta Kumar Das

as DW-2. The Trial Court, disbelieving the evidence of appellant dismissed his suit holding that he failed to prove that the respondent has treated

him with cruelty. Hence this appeal.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgement and

decree are liable to be interfered with and the appeal deserves to be allowed. It is the testimony of appellant that the respondent withdrew from his

company without any justifiable reason. It is clear from his evidence that the respondent was never taken to his house. Rather there is evidence to

show that both the parties resided in the house of adoptive father of the respondent after the marriage and the father of the appellant (PW-2) also

had no intimation about their marriage for about one and half years from the marriage. The fact that the father (PW-2) of the appellant was ignorant

of the marriage itself surfaces out during his cross-examination. As such, the allegations levelled by the respondent regarding demand of dowry

seem to be concocted. This we say so because the appellant married to respondent out of love and affection much against the wishes of his parents

and hence it is very difficult to believe and is unnatural that in such circumstances, he would demand dowry from the respondent. On the contrary,

there is evidence that the father (PW-2) of the appellant lodged a first information report against the family members of the respondent for

threatening them. Not only this, the appellant testified that he was also beaten by the respondent and some other persons after filing of the divorce

petition when he went to an internet cafe which caused him injuries. Pursuant to the said incident, he also had to be treated in hospital and a first

information report regarding the said incident was lodged by his father (PW-2) on 27.1.2010 which was duly registered. There is ample evidence

that the respondent held a press conference pursuant to which various news items regarding false allegations of demands of dowry against the

appellant were published and the same were defamatory. Therefore, it is quite clear that the appellant and his family members had to taste bitter

experiences in their both personal as well as social lives.

It is not beyond the ambit of one''s imagination, that if such allegations of dowry and treatment with cruelty are levelled in the public media

against some person, he is bound to suffer both mentally and physically. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant had to suffer for the acts of the

respondent and her family members. Although, Respondent and her brotherin- law (DW-2) testified that the appellant used to take money from the

father-in-law to meet the day-to-day expenses as well as for his further studies in New Delhi, the same is not believable. Besides, the respondent

has also not alleged that the appellant used to demand those day-to-day expenses as well as for his further studies in New Delhi and even if those

were paid by her adoptive father, same would not also go to show that appellant treated her with cruelty. So far her testimony to the effect that she

was made to abort her child on 10/2/2005 by the appellant, the fact of her abortion does not ipso-facto prove that she did it at the instance of

appellant and it remains un-ascertain as to for what reason, the so-called abortion was carried out in absence of any supportive evidence to that

effect.

In a nutshell, a careful reading of the evidence of all the witnesses would conclusively show that it is the respondent who repeatedly maligned the

reputation of the appellant in public. She approached Axom Poriyal Paramarkhadan Kendra and Axom Pradeshik Mahila Samity at Guwahati, and

also approached the media through a press conference as well as newspaper publications casting stigma on the appellant. There is also evidence

that he was assaulted by her in public after filing of the divorce petition causing him enough humiliation. It is for this act of the respondent, first

information report had to be lodged by the father of appellant. Hence, we are constrained to believe that the respondent treated the appellant with

cruelty and the Trial Court failed to appreciate that aspect of the matter in proper perspective. As a consequence, we are inclined to allow this

appeal and set aside the impugned judgement and decree. The appellant is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty meted out to

him by the respondent and as such the suit of the appellant is allowed and is decreed accordingly. As a consequence, the marriage between the

parties stands dissolved.

With the above directions, appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. Prepare the decree accordingly.