Deepa Talukdar Das vs Nitu Das

Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010048592026

2026:GAU-AS:16294-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Mat.App./24/2026
DEEPA TALUKDAR DAS
D/O LATE BAIKKYA TALUKDAR, R/O VILLAGE- SARIAHTALI, P.O-
MALINPUR, P.S.- NALBARI, DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781337 AND
PRESENTLY RESIDES AT GURUGRAM, SOHNA RURAL, HARYANA, PIN-
122103
VERSUS
NITU DAS
S/O MONOHARI DAS, R/O VILLAGE- KHUDRA CHENIKUCHI, P.O- NANKAR
BHAIRA, P.S.- NALBARI, DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781369
Advocate for the appellant : Mr. N. Sarma, Advocate
Advocate for the respondent : Mr. T. Mazumdar, Advocate


:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

Date of hearing & Judgment : 06.11.2026

Page No.# 2/6

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

(M. Zothankhuma, J)

1. Heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.
T. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present appeal has put to challenge the impugned Judgment
dated 04/02/2026 and Decree dated 06/02/2026 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Nalbari in MS (D) Case No. 120/2023, whereby the
marriage between the parties was dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on grounds of
mental cruelty.
3. The case of the appellant wife is that the respondent-husband had
filed a divorce petition alleging adultery, cruelty, and desertion against the
appellant-wife. However, the learned Family Court rejected the case of the
respondent-husband relating to grounds of adultery and desertion, but
nevertheless granted a decree of divorce solely on the ground that the
appellant-wife allegedly refused to cohabit with the respondent-husband since
2018, as the appellant-husband had subjected the respondent-wife to mental
cruelty.
4. The appellant’s counsel submits that the appellant-wife had not
subjected the respondent-husband to mental cruelty, and in fact, an FIR under
Section 498A IPC had been lodged by the appellant-wife against the
respondent-husband due to the torture inflicted by him upon her.

Page No.# 3/6
5. The appellant’s counsel submits that the learned Family Court had
without proper reasons closed the evidence of the appellant-wife, who was the
defendant before the learned Family Court, despite the fact that the appellant
had informed the Family Court that she could not attend Court due to the illness
of her daughter.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Family
Court committed a grave error in discarding the evidence of the appellant-wife
and her two witnesses, i.e, DW-1 and DW-2, and expunging their evidence due
to them not being cross-examined. The learned counsel prays that one last
chance should have been provided to the appellant-wife to produce her
witnesses for cross-examination, to enable the learned Family Court to decide
the matter properly on merits.
7. The counsel for the respondent-husband, on the other hand, submits
that the entire game plan of the appellant-wife was to delay the disposal of the
matrimonial suit pending before the learned Family Court. Further, the order
dated 17/05/2024 passed by the learned Family Court, which has never been
challenged by the appellant-wife, shows that the appellant was ready for a
mutual divorce, provided the appellant was given 50% share of the house and
the land, besides clearing all the arrears of educational fees of their daughter,
bearing the expenses of the marriage of their daughter and continuing with the
maintenance being paid by the respondent-husband. The counsel for the
respondent-husband submits that the appellant-wife was regularly absent from
the learned Family Court along with her defense witnesses. Accordingly, in view
of the above reasons, the learned Family Court had closed the evidence of the
appellant-wife.

Page No.# 4/6
8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. As can be seen from the order dated 18/11/2025 passed by the
learned Family Court, the appellant-wife had apparently gone to Haryana due to
the illness of her daughter. The adjournment prayer made on behalf of the
appellant-wife by her mother, had been allowed on 18/11/2025, fixing
12/12/2025 for cross-examination of the defense witnesses. However, the
appellant-wife and her two defense witnesses were absent, without any steps,
on 12/12/2025, due to which the evidence of the appellant-wife was closed. On
08/01/2026, the date fixed for arguments, the appellant-wife was again absent
without step. On the date fixed for judgment, i.e, 21/01/2026, the appellant-
wife was again absent without any reason. Another date was fixed for
judgment, i.e, 04/02/2026. However, on 04/02/2026 the appellant-wife was
again absent and the impugned judgment was pronounced on 04/02/2026. The
divorce decree was thereafter prepared on 06/02/2026.
10. As can be seen from the above facts, the appellant-wife and her
defence witnesses were absent without any steps. On perusing the order sheets
of the learned Family Court, we find that the learned Family Court in it’s order
dated 17/05/2024 had recorded the fact that the appellant-wife was ready for
mutual divorce, provided certain conditions were fulfilled by the respondent-
husband, i.e, if she was given 50% share of the house and land, clearing all the
arrear educational fees of their daughter, bearing the expenses of the marriage
of their daughter and the continued payment of maintenance.
11. Thus, it is clear from the above that the appellant-wife was not averse
to divorcing the respondent-husband.

Page No.# 5/6
12. Issues had been framed by the learned Family Court on 20/07/2024,
fixing 20/08/2024 for evidence of Prosecution witnesses. On 20/08/2024, the
appellant was absent without steps. Thereafter, the appellant-wife was absent
on six consecutive Court dates, that is, 25/09/2024, 30/11/2024, 10/02/2025,
22/04/2025, 17/05/2025, and 20/06/2025. It was only on the next two Court
dates, i.e, 22/07/2025 and 18/08/2025, that the appellant was present. On
15/09/2025, the appellant-wife was absent on the ground that she had gone for
admission of her daughter. On 24/10/2025, both the parties were present and
the appellant-wife had submitted her evidence by way of affidavit in respect of
DW-1 and DW-2. However, as stated earlier, adjournment had been prayed for
on behalf of the appellant-wife on 18/11/2025, which was allowed. Thereafter,
neither did the appellant-wife appear nor did her defense witnesses appear on
the next Court date, due to which the evidence of the appellant-wife was closed.
13. A perusal of the above orders of the learned Family Court goes to show
that the appellant-wife has been very lackadaisical in her approach before the
learned Family Court and she has apparently been absent without any reason.
There is nothing to show that the present appeal is with regard to any challenge
on the merits of the case and in fact, the order passed by the learned Family
Court shows that the appellant was not diligent in pursuing the case.
14. On considering all the above, we are of the view that the present
appeal has only been made to delay the final disposal of the case before the
learned Family Court, even though the appellant-wife was not averse to having
a mutual divorce with the respondent-husband. In view of the above reasons,
we do not find any ground to allow the present appeal. The same is accordingly
dismissed.

Page No.# 6/6
15. Send back the TCR.


JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant