THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND MIZORAM)

Mat. Appeal No.21 of 2016

Appellant: Sri Ajit Saikia S/O Sri Suren Saikia R/O Gowal Gaon, Majuli, P.S. Garmur District: Jorhat, Assam.

Respondent: Srimati Pallabi Baruah Saikia, Daughter of Sri Dinanath Baruah, Resident of Totoya, Majuli, P.S.Majuli (Kamalabari), District: Jorhat, Assam

BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN

For the Appellant : Mr. AD Choudhury, learned counsel

For the Respondent : Mr. P Bhowmick, learned counsel

Date of hearing & Judgment : 4.8.2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(Ajit Singh, C.J.) This appeal is by the husband-Ajit Saikia-against the judgment dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jorhat in Marriage Title Suit No. 47/2014, whereby the petition filed by him against his wife-Pallabi Baruah Saikia-under Section 13(1)(ia)&(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘Act’) has been dismissed.

2. Facts in short are these. Appellant and Respondent were married on 14.02.2013 and they started their married life in the house of appellant. At that point of time appellant being a soldier in the Indian Army was posted in Jalandhar. So he was about to leave for his place of posting. Then, the respondent insisted to live separately from her in-laws and on refusal she

Page 1 of 4 started quarrelling with appellant. Appellant tried to convince to have a peaceful conjugal life but she rebuked in filthy language and threatened him that she would file false case against him and his family members. She also insisted that he should pay Rs.10,000/-per month and to provide a separate accommodation for her. The appellant tried his best to change her mind, but in vain. On 17/4/2014 respondent left the house of appellant on pretext of filing application form to appear in the final examination of B.A. with false promise to return but even after 6 months, she did not return. On the other hand, she filed a first information report against the appellant and his parents which was registered as Gormur Police Station Case No.59/2013 under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint, she alleged that appellant and his parents tortured her after a few days of a marriage on demand of dowry. She also alleged that appellant’s father kept a bad eye on her. Due to the aforesaid case appellant and his family members suffered immense mental agony and their status in the society was also brought down to a considerable extent. Respondent also filed an application under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure praying for maintenance and in a settlement made in the Lok Adalat, appellant agreed to pay Rs.4000/-per month to her. She also initiated a false case being number 4/2014 under section 406 of the Indian penal code against appellant alleging that he had illegally retained the Streedhan. Therefore, appellant filed a petition for decree of dissolution of marriage in the Court of District Judge, Jorhat mainly on the ground that respondent had treated him with cruelty.

3. Respondent contested the suit denying the allegations made by appellant regarding mental cruelty meted out to him as well as his parents. She contended that after marriage both of them were living together, but after 15 days of their marriage appellant went to his place of service and he did not communicate with her from his place of posting. Her in-laws started causing harassment to her without any cause and used to rebuke her on flimsy grounds. She also stated that her father-in-law used to follow her when she went to take bath and used to peep her through the window hole. He also used to observe her at the time of changing her cloths. As a result she

Page 2 of 4 was mentally broken down. Appellant directed his brother over phone to take her from matrimonial home and hence on 17/4/2014, he took her to her parents’ place and left her there.

4. The trial court disbelieved the case of appellant and dismissed his petition for divorce. According to the trial court, he could not prove the ground of mental cruelty meted out to him by the respondent.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we have reached the conclusion that the appeal must be allowed. Admittedly, there is evidence that the criminal case filed by the respondent against appellant and his parents ended with clear acquittal. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 05/11/2015 passed in GR Case No. 210/13 acquitted appellant and his parents of the charges under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, thereby proving that respondent lodged a false case against them to harass. It is the evidence of Ratul Kalita, father-in-law Suren Saikia and Dharmeswar Medhi that due to the false case leveled against appellant and his parents, they had to leave their residence for some time as the police used to harass them and they were apprehending arrest. However, they were granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court to their respite. Appellant also deposed that he could not join his service due to the said reason and for the apprehension of being arrested. There is ample evidence that due to the said false case, they had to suffer immense mental agony and their social status has also been considerably diminished. Thus, it is crystal clear that respondent treated the appellant with cruelty by lodging a false case against appellant and his parents.

6. In K.Srinivas Rao-Vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226, it is held that when a false case is lodged by a wife under section 498-A, of the Indian Penal Code, it amounts to mental cruelty and is a ground for a decree of divorce. We do not see any justifiable ground to differ with the said position of law and deny appellant a decree of divorce. More so, when respondent has admitted in her cross-examination that she does not wish to go back to her matrimonial home and has no objection if divorce is granted

Page 3 of 4 with alimony. This being the position, we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Therefore, we disagree with the view of the trial court and as such the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2015 is set aside. As a consequence, appeal is allowed and a decree of divorce is passed in favour of the appellant.

7. Having regard to the fact that appellant is soldier in the Indian Army and also considering the fact that respondent has not lived with him for long time, we are of the considered view that appellant should pay Rs.5 lacs as permanent alimony to the respondent. The appellant is accordingly directed to first pay Rs.2 lacs to the respondent within two months from today and thereafter he shall quarterly pay the remaining amount of Rs.3 lacs in equal installments.

8. The appeal is allowed and a decree be prepared accordingly.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Skd

Page 4 of 4