The husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive his wife of the benefit of living with dignity: Tripura High Court
The husband is unable to take subterfuges to rob her of a dignified life. As the solemn undertaking was required in marriage, and as a result, it is also a duty on the husband to see that the wife does not become an impoverished, beggar, acting following the statutory law governing the region. A circumstance should not be produced maliciously if she is forced to resign her destiny and think of life as dust to dust. It is unacceptable. The judgement was passed by the High Court of Tripura in the case of Ramendra Kishore Bhattacharjee v. Madhurima Bhattacharjee [Crl.Rev.P.No.36 of 2020] by Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice MR. S.G.Chattopadhyay.
The facts of the case are an application under Section 12 of the DV Act was filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class against the petitioner seeking various reliefs under the DV Act wherein respondent referred to several incidents of domestic violence against her husband. The present writ petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment of the session court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that where there is no evidence of domestic violence, the wife is not entitled to any relief under the DV Act. In this regard learned counsel has relied on the Apex Court judgment passed in Sangita Saha vs. Abhijit Saha And Others, wherein the Apex Court has held that petitioner is entitled to relief under the DV Act only in case she establishes domestic violence. He further also contended that in absence of the proof of the ingredients of domestic violence, the wife is not entitled to relief provided under the DV Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that admittedly the husband is a government employee having a monthly salary of not less than ₹50,000 who is quite able to maintain his wife. Learned counsel contended that the wife by producing cogent and coherent evidence proved that she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and the courts below on appreciation of her evidence and the entire facts and circumstances of the case granted the reliefs to her under the DV Act. It is, therefore, submitted by him that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the courts below. According to learned counsel, the wife is entitled to the same standard of living as she would have lived in the house of her husband and therefore, the trial court rightly granted ₹15,000/- per month as monetary relief to her which was also upheld by the appellate court.
While giving reliance on Delhi High Court judgment Babita Bisht vs. Dharmender Singh Bisht wherein it was noted that, “it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour or if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.”
While rejecting the petition the court ordered the appellant that he shall, pay ₹15,000 to his wife as monetary relief as directed by the Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment. The said monetary relief shall be paid by the husband by depositing the same in her savings bank account.