SMTI BISMITA SAIKIA vs SRI PRANJAL DUTTA

Ajit Singh, C.J.

1.This appeal has been preferred by the wife-Smti Bismita Saikia-against the impugned judgement and decree dated 15.9.2014 passed by the Principal

Judge, Family Court, No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati, allowing the suit for divorce filed against her by husband â€"Sri Pranjal Dutta. Earlier, the impugned

Judgment and Decree was challenged by the appellant before this court through the instant appeal which was dismissed, vide judgment dated

24.06.2015 by another Division Bench. On 21.7.2016, the Appellant filed Review Petition No.85/2016 on the ground that the judgment of the Division

Bench was not tenable as the same was passed on the basis of some incorrect factual matrix and this court, also being satisfied about the fact that

it’s earlier judgment was based on incorrect facts, allowed that review petition vide order dated 04.04.2017 setting aside the earlier judgment of

the Division Bench dated 24.06.2015, with a direction to list the instant appeal for re-hearing. This is how this matter has been listed before us for re-

hearing and deciding afresh. It may be pertinent to mention here that after the dismissal of appeal and during the pendency of review petition, the

respondent has remarried to another woman on 11.12.2016.

The facts in short are these. Appellant was married to respondent on 18/01/2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, appellant

started living in her matrimonial home along with the family members of the respondent. The respondent used to stay with his mother who is a cancer

patient. According to the respondent, appellant started behaving in an awkward manner after the ‘Jurun’ itself. After the said function, appellant

called the respondent over telephone and insulted him for gifting her low standard ornaments as she was expecting some platinum ornaments from

him. Immediately after marriage, she started behaving in the cruel manner with the respondent as well as his mother and sister. She frequently said

that she was compelled to marry the respondent by her father and used to taunt him saying that he was a dark complexion man. She clearly stated to

the respondent that she does not wish to be called as a daughter-in-law and she was comfortable with her western clothing only. She also refused to

wake up early in morning and to do household works and even denied adhering to the traditions of the Society. Once she pushed her mother-in-law

causing injuries to her, for which she had to take some treatment. When the respondent tried to make her understand the ways of the family and

requested her to be humble, she used to make a hue and cry and also insulted and physically assaulted him. She had bitten him on his neck and hand

once and also entered the room of his elder sister at night, who came to look after their sick mother, and tried to strangulate her. When the other

members of the family heard the commotion, they came for rescue of his sister. The appellant also used to make hue and cry on petty issues and did

not miss any opportunity to humiliate him and his family members. She repeatedly used to say that she is more educated than any other member of the

family of the respondent. Once, when his sister was suffering from viral fever and he went to her room at night to give medicine, appellant heard her

speaking over telephone to someone, on the next morning that the respondent has illicit relation with his own sister. On 30/01/2010, appellant also

created a scene by shouting filthy language and biting the respondent on his neck and left arm for which he had to take treatment in the hospital. The

respondent informed about odd behaviour of the appellant to her father, but he did not take any interest in addressing the same. Respondent also heard

from reliable sources that the appellant tried to commit suicide prior to his marriage by throwing herself into a well but she did not die as there was no

sufficient water in that well. He also heard that she often used to quarrel with her father on small issues. When the matter was informed to her father,

instead of addressing the same, he went to the Mahila Samiti as well as to the local police station and lodged complaint against the respondent. Not

only this, he also went to the Protection Officer under of Domestic Violence alleging domestic violence to the appellant and as such, it became

impossible for the respondent to stay with her anymore and hence, he filed the suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Appellant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her. She pleaded that after marriage, she has been

trying her level best to prove herself as the best daughter-in-law. She vehemently denied that she treated the respondent as well as her mother-in-law

with cruelty and abused them with un-parliamentary words. She stated that she had been very kind and gentle to her mother-in-law and always tried

to upheld and adhere to the traditional and customary values. She also pleaded that their marriage was duly consummated in the first night itself and

she tried to perform all her duties with utmost dedication and rather it is the respondent, who filed a case against her father in the Court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, under Sections 120 B/406/420/ 445/441 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, her father used to avoid meeting the

respondent. So far her mental condition is concerned, she pleaded that she is highly qualified with various educational degrees to her credit and she

has been presently working as a Liberian-cum-Assistant Teacher in Noonmati Public School without any blemish. She also pleaded that she has been

staying in her matrimonial home and she has not deserted the respondent and as such she prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Both the parties adduced their respective evidence. Respondent adduce his evidence as PW1, his mother Smti Purnima Dutta as PW2, one

neighbour of the appellant-Sri Beda Brata Baruah as PW3, his maid servant Smti Bina Sarkar (Namasudra) as PW4 and one of his colleagues- Sri

Kamal Chandra Das as PW5, whereas appellant adduced her evidence as DW1, one distant relative of her and also the Chairman of the Society

which manages the school where she works-Sri Dambarudhar Talukdar-as DW2 and one Sri Joydeep Hazarika as DW3. The Trial Court, believing

the evidence of the respondent allowed his suit holding that the appellant has treated him with cruelty and as such he deserved divorce.

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

is not liable to be interfered with and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. This we say so because the respondent has been able to prove that

appellant treated him with cruelty and appellant failed to thwart the evidence of respondent. The respondent in his evidence has categorically

supported his pleadings. He has specifically deposed that on 03/02/2009 at about 7 a.m. when he asked the appellant to get up from the bed she

refused and said that she could not get up early and prepare breakfast for everyone. He also deposed that on 11/02/2009 at about 8 p.m. when he told

her that some guests would be coming, she raised a hue and cry, saying that no guest is allowed in her house. On 20/02/2009 when the respondent

requested her to behave properly and to live as a married girl in a decent manner, she refused to do so by saying that she does not want to be called as

a daughter- in- law. On 05/05/2009 she also created a scene for not being served with a proper piece of fish and again on 08/06/2009 she told that she

was forcibly married by her father and she does not like him at all. The respondent also deposed that on 20/06/2009 at about 1:30 a.m. appellant tried

to strangulate his sister and she could be rescued only by the intervention of other persons of the family. He further deposed that appellant tried to

commit suicide prior to her marriage. When the father of the appellant was informed about her odd behaviour and told him that her behaviour has been

becoming unbearable to them, her father went to the Mahila Samiti and also lodged a complaint in the local police. Her father then even informed the

matter to the All Women Police Station, Panbazar, and also the protection Officer under Domestic Violence. It is the evidence of the respondent that

appellant used to go out from the house at odd hours without even intimating anyone and the father of the appellant came on 15/07/2010 along with

her, and broke open the door of his mother and misbehaved with the female members of his house. So he had to file one complaint before the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup.

Respondent has also deposed that on 13/09/2010, appellant went to his office and talked against him to his colleagues and on the next day she again

came to his office and abused him with filthy languages in front of all his colleagues and misbehaved with him. She also asked him to withdraw the

divorce case or proof is no consequences or to face dire consequences. She again came to his office on 15/09/2010 and humiliated him in front of all

and so he had to file a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Panbazar. It is also his deposition that on 04/05/2013, at about 7:30 p.m. she

assaulted his sister by slapping mercilessly and he called her as unqualified person and his sister then filed a complaint before the All Women Police

Station, Panbazar, for which appellant went to the house of his sister and raised hue and cry on compelling his sister to call the police.

The evidence of the respondent is corroborated by his mother Smti Purnima Dutta (PW2). She deposed that the appellant used to treat her as well

as other family members with cruelty. She also deposed that appellant tried to strangulate her daughter and also pushed DW2 due to which she fell

down and sustained injury on her elbow. She categorically deposed that on 21/06/2010, appellant started a fight with the respondent without any

reason and then she jumped upon him and pinned him down on the floor and the appellant frequently used to say that she likes fair complexion man

with high educational qualifications and of high standards and she hates respondent and his family members. PW2 also corroborated the evidence that

appellant along with her father came to her house on 15/07/2010, and broke into her room and abused all the family members in filthy language.

The evidence of the respondent and PW2 is further corroborated by Smti Bina Sarkar (Namasudra) (PW4), who happens to be their maid servant.

PW4 has categorically deposed that appellant used to treat the respondent with cruelty and also assaulted him in front of her on several occasions.

She has deposed that appellant used to say that she does not like dark complexioned man and whenever respondent used to come in front of her she

started behaving rudely. She has also deposed that appellant once held respondent by his neck and throttled him and when she intervened then

appellant shouted at her too. PW4 also corroborated the evidence of both respondent and PW2 to the effect that appellant tried to strangulate the

sister of the respondent at night and that she along with her father came to the house and broke open the bedroom of the mother (PW2) of

respondent. Surprisingly, this witness has not been cross-examined on any of these allegations made by her against the appellant.

By conjoint reading of the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4, it becomes crystal clear that appellant used to treat the respondent with cruelty. It is

proved that she used to quarrel with the respondent and his family members on flimsy grounds on and off and also assaulted the respondent, his

mother as well as sister. She used to abuse the respondent in filthy language for being a dark complexioned man and also used to misbehave his

mother, who is a cancer patient, as well as his sister, who came for the help of her mother. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 has not been

shaken during their cross-examinations. Rather, the evidence of PW1 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW3 and PW5. PW3 who is the

neighbour of the appellant has categorically deposed that appellant used to quarrel with her father, prior to her marriage on small issues and her father

could not control her and used to beat her for that. She also tried to commit suicide by throwing herself into a well. PW5, who is a colleague of the

respondent, has also categorically deposed that after filing of the divorce case, appellant went to his office on more than one occasion and misbehaved

with him in front of all, in filthy language. She also threatened him to withdraw the divorce case or face dire consequences which would go to show

that appellant is a woman of desperate nature. The evidence of PW3 and PW5 are also not shaken during their cross-examination. PW3 being a

neighbour of the appellant had no occasion to lie in the Court. A careful reading of the evidence of all the witnesses would go to show that it is the

appellant, who never missed one single occasion to misbehave with the respondent and his other family members and not only this, she assaulted them,

too.

Although, appellant deposed in her evidence that she did not treat the respondent and his family members with cruelty, her evidence is not

supported by cogent evidence. Sri Joydeep Hazarika (DW3), although deposed that the family of the appellant was liked and respected by all, he in his

cross-examination admitted that his evidence was prepared by the advocate, and he does not even know about the contents of his evidence-in-

affidavit. Besides, he admitted that the contents therein are also hearsay and based on his assumptions. Therefore, the evidence of DW3 is of no help

to the appellant. Similarly, Sri Dambarudhar Talukdar (DW2) has only deposed that appellant was working as a Librarian-cum-Assistant Teacher in

the school and her performance was satisfactory. She is respected by the staff and she is well mannered and gentle lady. But, during his cross-

examination he categorically admitted that he did not attend her marriage ceremony and she has been working in the school for last four years only

and he can comment regarding her respect only and not anything else. Therefore, the evidence of appellant to the effect that she did not misbehave

with the respondent and his family members remains without any corroboration. On the other hand, the evidence of respondent is supported by cogent

evidence and as such, we are of the considered view that the respondent has been able to prove that the appellant used to treat him and his family

members with cruelty and as such deserves a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court rightly passed the Judgement and Decree

dissolving the marriage of the parties and in view of the above discussions, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Judgement and

Decree calling for our interference.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.