Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The brief facts of the case is that the parties were married under the Hindu customs and rituals in the year 1987. The parties along with their two children resided Page No.# 3/11 in a Police quarter, as the respondent-husband was a Police personnel.

4. The appellant-wife filed a Domestic Violence (DV) Case No. 146/2017 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Silchar, Cachar in the year 2017, on the ground that the respondent-husband used to torture the petitioner, both mentally and physically. The DV case No. 146/2017 was disposed of by the Court of JMFC vide order dated 04/03/2021, by coming to a finding that it has been established that the respondent-husband had inflicted acts of domestic violence on the appellant- wife. The learned Court of JMFC thereafter passed the following directions :-

1 shall make necessary arrangement for the same so that she can live there in a manner suited to her lifestyle.

IV) The respondent shall make a monthly payment of Rs. 4,000/-(Rupees Four Thousand) only towards the aggrieved for her maintenance (including food, clothing and medical expenses).

V) The respondent shall pay Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only as compensation to the aggrieved."

5. The respondent -husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under section 13(1)((ia)(ib) &(vi) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the year 2018 i.e. Page No.# 4/11 subsequent to the filing of the DV case by the appellant -wife, but before disposal of the DV case. The learned Family Court thereafter framed 6(six) issues, which are as follows :-

15. The above evidence of PWs- 2 & 3 and DWs 1 & 2, clearly show that only married women put vermillion on their forehead and wore Conch bangles as per Dimasa culture. However, the appellant had stopped wearing vermillion and Conch bangles after she started immersing herself in spiritual activities.

16. We have also noticed that in the final order dated 04/03/2021 passed by the Court of learned JMFC, Cachar, Silchar, in DV Case No. 146/2017, the Court has stated in para 15 that the appellant wore white clothes at times and she belonged to the Dimasa Kachari community and was a Hindu. The appellant knew the rituals of the Hindu religion and that widow wore white clothes. The Court of the learned JMFC in the final order dated 04/03/2021, at para 21, has also observed that PW-2 (brother of the present appellant) in the DV Case No. 146/2017 had, in his cross examination admitted that the appellant had joined Prajapita Brahmakumari Ishwaria Vishwavidyalaya and started to live in white attire even after the protest made by the respondent and elders of the village. The Court of the learned JMFC in the DV case further held in para 21 of the said order dated 04/03/2021 as follows :-

23. In the present case, besides the appellant devoting all her time to spiritual Page No.# 11/11 activities, had also filed a DV case against the appellant. In the case of Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs. Rani Suneela Rani [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1595], the Supreme Court has held that it cannot be accepted that no cruelty was meted out to the husband, when he has been made to undergo trial in which he is acquitted, on the allegation of committing an offence under section 498(A) IPC, leveled by his wife. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226] , the Supreme Court held that the filing of a case under section 498(A) IPC by the wife against the husband, which was subsequently withdrawn, amounted to causing mental cruelty to the husband.