Court: Patiala House Courts
Bench: Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
xxxxxxxxx Versus xxxxxxxx on 21 December 2024
Law Point: Contested Divorce in 6 Year in Delhi
JUDGEMENT
1. Petitioner/husband has filed the present petition u/s 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for the sake of brevity) praying for dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce dissolving marriage between petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty.
2. Succinctly, the case of the petitioner is that he got married with the respondent on 08:05 2002 at Khandelwal Bhaswan, Kachaman City District Nagaur, Kajasthan as per Hindu Rotes and ceremonies The marriage. was duly consummated and the parties happily settled down in the marital life. A son was born from the wedlock on 28.04.2004,
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that the behaviour of respondent towards the petitioner and his parents started changing from the beginning of the year 2015 onwards. She had started picking up fights for no reasons every now and then and started deliberately creating domestic discord and behaving with cruelty towards him and his parents. He always tried his best to persuade her not to do so but to no avail. The respondent was being instigated in this behaviour by her maternal relations in Nagaur, Rajasthan. The intention of respondent turned so bad, spiteful and menacing towards him and his old age parents, that in April, 2016 with false and concocted allegations she filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty before Hon’ble Family Court in District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
4. Shortly, thereafter she again with false and concocted allegations filed petition no. 643/16 under Section 125 Cr.PC in the court of MM-cum Civil Judge, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. She had also filed various false and concocted complaints with police in Kuchaman City, Nagaur Rajasthan. As a result, the police of Kuchaman City, Nagaur Rajasthan on 26.03.2016 registered FIR No. 80/2016 under Section 4980/406/323 IPC. In the said FIR No. 80/2016 a closure report was filed by the concerned police investigation officer as it was found that the complaint was false. The respondent through efforts of near relation and legal counsel on both the sides, realizing her mistake entered into a settlement on 25/105 20th which was reduced to writing and thereafior astarored on 315 2016 She agreed to withdraw all the allegations against the petitioner and co-operate in bringing and end to all the pending civil and crummal petitions and to make an attempt to live peacefully in cooperation with each other for the sake of their marital tie and future of the son. As a result of the same the divorce petition filed by her on the ground of cruelty and petition under Section 125 Cr.PC were withdrawn
5. It is further the case of the petitioner is that again on the instigation of her maternal relation and out of her deliberate vicious and quarrelsome temperament adopted by her only to torment and torture the petitioner and his parents, again filed false complaints with police of PS Kuchaman City, Nagaur Rajasthan which led to registration of second FIR No. 214/16 under Section 498A/406/323 IPC on 05.08.2016. Through out this period from 2016 onwards the petitioner and his parents always tried their level best to make the respondent happy and never hesitated even to purchase major assets for the family like immovable property in the name of the respondent. The respondent had never been a working woman and had never been gainfully employed and thus never contributed to the same nor her maternal relations contributed in any manner.
6. Deteriorating behaviour of respondent since 2016 towards them was tragic and baffling for the petitioner as he had no knowledge as to why there was such a change in her conduct and behaviour. She did not allow the petitioner to cook food for himself in the kitchen nor she cooked for him herself. She forcibly barred the entry of petitioner to most parts of the residence and also not having any martial physical relations with the petitioner for many years. She also threatened to permanently remove their on from his company and every now and then openly threatened the petitioner with further false complaints only to harass him and his parents more and more
7. It is stated that the conduct of the respondent is clearly willful and unjustifiably cruel causing danger to the physical and mental well being of the petitioner for which he is entitled to decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of HMA. It is asserted that for the past two years, the parties had no relation with each other even while staying at the same premises. The marriage has been irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of parties living together peacefully in future. Hence, the present petition.
8. The notice was duly served upon the respondent. The respondent has contested the petition and inter alia has made preliminary objections that the petitioner has concealed the material facts that he alongwith his family members not only harassed, tortured and committed cruelty upon her but even misappropriated her istridhan. She averred that petition filed by the petitioner is merely a counter blast to the criminal case, FIR, divorce petition and domestic violence case filed by her against the petitioner and his family members.
9. In preliminary submissions, she has stated that she was abused and insulted by petitioner and her parents expressing dissatisfaction over the dowry articles and cash given to the respondent in connection with her marriage. She alleged that she was treated as a maid servant and not as a daughter in law. She was pressurized to bring a motorcycle from her family members and thee to the centilan posture and hunt the respondent’s ortholand material grand father also made necessary rangements for the thongy and hunded over the east to the petitioner for purchasing of motorcycle, however, their greed never ended. On every festival, her mother to law on the pretext of customs demanded from the respondent to bring clothes, jewellery etc. from her parental side. Whenever the demands of the petitioner and his family was not fulfilled as per their expectations they used to ill-treat her
10. She alleged that she was given beatings and not given proper food in time. Even at the time of birth of the son huge demands were made by the petitioner and her parents which despite being more than capacity were fulfilled by her parental side and matemal grand parent side. She also levelled the allegations that after the birth of the son, the respondent was not given milk to feed her minor child due to which the child became very weak. The petitioner and his parents neither took the minor son to doctor for checkup nor allowed the respondent to go to her parental house. The petitioner and liis parents were also given gifts, cash, jewellery and other expensive items as per their demand at the time of marriage of brother of the respondent. She alleged that the petitioner used to beat her and her son Kshitiz till he used to get tired. As a result of beatings, marks of injury used to appear on the face and body of their son and thereafter their son could not go to school for 4-7 days. She alleged that all her dowry articles alongwith jewellery and entire istridhan, documents FDRs and all her savings etc. are in power and possession of petitioner and his parents. In the year, 2015 they used all the money savings ete. of the respondent and encashed all her FDRs to purchase Maruti Celario Car. She alleged that after few months the petitioner and his family members started demanding huge cash amount for payment of loan of their flat. When the said demand of petitioner and his parents was not fulfilled, on 29.02.2016 the petitioner and his parents gave severe beatings to her and child and thrown them out from the house at 11.30 PM. Having no alternative, she told the petitioner and his parents that she was asking her family to get money and requested the petitioner and his parents not to throw her and her son out of the house as they had no other place to go in night
11. On 17.03.2016, her brother came and tried to make the petitioner and his family understand but they abused quarreled and gave beatings to the respondent and her brother and pushed them out of the house. They also threatened the respondent to kill her and kidnap her son if they dared to lodge any complaint. Due to harassment, illtreatment and beatings given to the respondent and her son, the respondent was forced to take transfer certificate from the school of her son and seek admission of her son at DPS Jaipur.
12. She stated that she lodged a complaint in CAW Cell on which case FIR No. 85/16 under Section 498A/406/323 IPC was registered al Police Station Kuchaman City. She also filed a complaint under Section 12 of PWDV Act against the petitioner and his parents at Jaipur and also filed divorce petition against the petitioner at Family Courts, Nagaur. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members approached the respondent and her family members had apologized for their conduct. They undertook not to commit any violence on the respondent and her minor child or raise any demands nor harass and torture the respondent and her minor son in any manner in future. At the mstance of petitioner and his lumily a writing dated 09:06 2016 was also executed im presence of relatives and respectable persons of the society which was signed by both the parties. Relying on the sand undertaking and assurances she got her complaint and FIR lodged at Kuchman City withdrawn and even withdrew her divorce petition.
13. It is further the case of respondent that when she went for withdrawal of her case under DV Aet before the court on 02.07.2016, the petitioner, his father and other family members came there and asked the respondent and brother to destroy all three copies of writing to which the respondent and her family members refused. The petitioner snatched the copy of compromise deed from the hands of respondent and threatened that he had an FIR against him which has now got finished. He further threatened that all his relatives are at high post and they have assured the petitioner that now nothing would go wrong and they would see everything. After realizing the fraud played by petitioner and his family members upon the responden and fraudulently getting the cases against them withdrawn and having no intention to abide by their undertakings, in order to seek justice, she lodged complaint for not returning of istridhan articles as well as torture/cruelty on account of demand of dowry against the petitioner and his family members pursuant to which FIR no. 214/16 under Section 498A/406/323 IPC wa registered against the petitioner and his family members. She further allege that the petitioner laid an other ploy and on 11.07.2017 during hearing case FIR no. 214/16 under Section 498A/406/323 IPC before CJ (JD) JM Kuchaman City offered again to live with the respondent. As per the order of the court, the respondent came alongwith her son and started living wit the petitioner w.c.f 11.07.2017, however, the petitioner who had no bonafide intention against started harassing the respondem and her som In order to harass het, he got installed cameras at various places inside the imuse including the doors of bedroom and bathroom so that the respondent was forced to leave the house. He did not permit her to keep her and the child belongings in any Almirah.
14. He started coming home late in night and leave early mormng and on various dates he even did not turn up in night. Being aggrieved by the acts of the petitioner including not getting the child admitted in school and not bearing the expenses of the child and respondent, she called women helpline at 181. The petitioner assured the Women Commissioner Officer who came on call, not to harass and torture the respondent and get the child admitted in school but after the officer left the petitioner again taunted her and threatened not to make any such calls to any helpline in future else she would not be spared. On Several occasions he threatened the respondent to remove the child from her custody and take him to neem ka thana village if the respondent did not meet the demands of petitioner and withdrew her cases and give divorce to him. He even used to threaten her that he has recordings of certain private moments of the respondent and the petitioner which he would upload on internet if she did not vacate his house and withdrew her cases. As the petitioner did not provide for even the basic needs of the respondent and her son she was constrained to file an application under Section 125 Cr.PC against the petitioner seeking maintenance. On coming to know about the same, on 24.09.2017, the parents of the petitioner also came from their house at Neem Ka Thana to live with them at Delhi and in order to pressurize her to leave the house and not to pursue her cases they all together started harassing her by creating false issues and also started pressurizing and beating the respondent and her son. in order to harass her, the petitioner sent a false and frivilous notice dated 06.10.2017 through his counsel falsely alleging that the respondent may not do any cruel act against the petitioner and may not forcefully remove the minor child from matrimonial house. The petitioner invited his friends at house who abused and threatened her in various ways due to which she lodged a complaint at PS Vasant Kunj and DD No. 58 B, PS Vasant Kunj was recorded.
15. It is further the case of the respondent that maintenance allowance of Rs. 16,000/- per month was awarded to her and her son vide order dated 13.12.2017 in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Further vide order dated 22.02.2018 maintenance allowance of Rs. 16,000/-was awarded in her Domestic Violence Act case. She has also narrated the insufficiency of maintenance allowances awarded to her in view of her expenses. She also alleged that on 29.04.2018 the petitioner alongwith his friend Sh. Sandeep Jhanjaria came to her house on the pretext of taking some articles and after entering the house they started misbehaving with her and also started touching her private parts. On a call at 100 number, when the police came the petitioner and her friends ran away with articles of respondent but only after extending threats of the respondent.
16. On merits, the averments made in the petition are denied and the averments made in the primarily submissions are reiterated. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
17. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 31.07.2018.
19. On an application filed on behalf of petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 CPC for production of documents, he was permitted to place on record the additional documents vide order dated 17.08.2024 and thereafter on the verbal request made by the counsel for petitioner for adducting the additional evidence by way of affidavit, he was permitted to adduce additional evidence in respect of the additional documents permitted to be taken on record, vide order dated 05.10.2024. The additional evidence by way of affidavit of the petitioner has been tendered as Ex.PW-1/A1. In the additional evidence by way of affidavit, he also relied upon the additional documents i.c.
- Copy of FIR No. 80/16 dated 26.03.2016 under Section 498A/406/323 IPC PS Kuchaman City alongwith final report No. 36/16, dated 17.06.2016 filed the said case Ex.PW-1/11 (colly.)
- Copy of FIR No. 214/16 dated 05.08.2016 under Section 498A/406/323 IPC PS Kuchaman City alongwith Judgment of Acquittal dated 26. 08. 2018 passed by the frial Coun m. Cr. No. 643/2016 Ex.PW. 1/12(colly.).
- Copy of order dated 11.09.2019 of 1.d. MM Jaipur City, Rajasthan in DV Case titled as “xxxxxx Vs. xxxxxx” Ex.PW-1/13,
20. opportunity No evidence has been adduced by the respondent despite
21. The arguments advanced by the counsel for petitioner have been duly considered. No arguments have been advanced nor any written arguments have been filed on behalf of respondent despite opportunity. The material on record has been meticulously perused and the law and precedents on the point have been gone through.
22. The findings on various issues are here as under:
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of HMA 1955? OPP
Section 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 deals with the divorce on the ground of cruelty which reads inter alia as under:
“13(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
23. The word “crulty” Thus nowhere been detined under the Act. The same has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case It is matter of common knowledge that there cannot be any set pattern to infer the variety of cruelty caused by one spouse to other spouse from their day to day conduct. So, it needs to be appreciated in the backdrop of the type of life the parties are accustomed to and in relation to their economic and social conditions ete
24. Before discussing the evidence, it may be mentioned that for grant of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) IIMA, the petitioner is required to establish that after solemnization of the marriage his/her spouse had treated him/her with cruelty. To constitute cruelty the conduct complaint of has to be so grave and weighty so as to come to the conclusion that petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It has to be something more serious than ‘ordinary wear and tear of married life’. Taking into consideration the circumstances and background the conduct is examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in matrimonial law. The conduct is considered in the background of social status of the parties, victims capacity of endurance, their education, physical and mental condition, customs and traditions, to satisfy the conscious of the court that relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, entitling the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent force of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may constitute cruelty within meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) HMA Absence of intention does not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affains the act complained of would otherwise be regarded as cruelty
(Reference made to the judgment in Kaman Gupta vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta AIR 1985 Delhi 221. V Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1998) 1 SCC 105, Rajrani ws Subramaniam AIR 1990 Kerala 1, Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73.)
25. In the case of Parveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706, Hon’ble Supreme Court held,
“Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13111(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour hy one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only he appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to he drawn from the attending facts and circumstancex taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not he a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient hy itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.”
26. In the judgment tilted Samar Ghush v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 571, their Lordship examined several decision on the subject of matrimonial cruelty while it was observed
No uniform standard can ever he laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to emomerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(1) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(ii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of momer, mdifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely untolerable
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one sponse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(vii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grunt of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which bopposes in day to day lựe would not he adequate for groot of divorce on the youand of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few notated mstances over a period of years will not amoon to cruelty The ill conduct must be persistent for a furly lengthy period, where the relatondup has deteriorated to an extent that becumse of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband sahmits homself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of contumous separation, it may fairly be conchided that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that the, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage: on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty”.
27. In the light of the law on the point now reverting back to the instant case, the petitioner/husband has pleaded cruelty primarily on the ground of changed habit of his wife from the year 2015 onwards, who started fighting and creating domestic discord and behaving in a cruel manner with the petitioner and his parents at the behest of her maternal relation in Nagaur, Rajasthan and lodging of false cases against them.
28. In respect of allegation with regard to the change of behaviour of his wife on the instigation of her maternal relation and deliberately creating the domestic discord and behaving in a cruel manner, he has not produced any cogent evidence nor he has specified the various instances.
However, Lix PW-1/11 (colly) be TIR No 80/16, PS Kuchaman City and the anal report of the first complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 4980/406/323 IPC reveals that the respondent had levelled the allegations of demand of motorcycle, jewellery, cash clothes etc. from time to time by the respondent against the petitioner and his parents and cruelty inflicted upon her in order to meet their demands mentioned in FIR whereas in the final report on the FIR SHO concerned has given his report that xxxxxx and her husband xxxxxx had arguments and difference of opinion over the household chores and on the education of the child. Her husband made her to understand and persuade her, however, she could not be convinced and on the instigation of somchody, she left the matrimonial house and came to her paternal house. She also lodged the complaint against her husband and in laws by concocting false story in haste. It is further reported that the complainant was never harassed for dowry and all the istridhan was lying with her. xxxxxx had also given in writing that the complaint was lodged due to difference in opinion over domestic issues and that now they had resolved their disputes and living happily. The final report has also been accepted by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate on 03.06.2016.
29. Ex.PW-1/12 (colly.) reveals that the petitioner had lodged second FIR vide FIR No. 214/16 under Section 498A/406/323 IPC against the petitioner and her parents. The judgment dated 26.08.2019 (which is also part of Ex.PW-1/12 (colly.)) reveals that the accused persons have been acquitted by Ld. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City. Further from Ex.PW-1/13, it is established that the petition under DV Act filed by the respondent has been dismissed for non prosecution by Metropolian Magistrate Jaipur vide order dated 11.09.2019. Hence, the petitioner has established that respondent had lodged false complaints against the petitioner and her parents Lodging of false crimmutal cases agam the petitioner and his parents amounts to mental cruelty
30. Though filing of criminal complaint itself does not amount cruelty however, grave uncorroborated allegations amounts to cruelty. The Supreme Court in case Ravi Kumar Vs. Julmi Devi (2010) 4 SCC 476 has categorically held that “reckless, false and defamatory allegations against the husband and the family members would have an effect of lowering their reputation in the eyes of society” and it amounts to cruelty. Similar observations were made by the coordinate bench of Delhi High Court in Rita Vs. Jai Solanki (2017) SCC online Del 907. Further in the case titled K. Srinivas and K. Sunita (2014) SLT 126 it was held that filing of a false complaint against husband and his family members also constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of IIMA.
31. Hence, it is established that the petitioner alongwith his parents was falsely implicated in criminal dowry demand and domestic violence cases which amounts to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of HMA.
Issue no.i is thus decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Relief.
32. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that due to lodging of false cases lodged by the respondent against the petitioner and his parents, they would have undergone the rigours of the investigation and trial
specially m the criminal cases The said cases would also have an adverse effect on their reputation in the society causing them acute agony After undergoing the said rigours it cannot be reasonably expected from the petitioner to live with the respondent without agony and threat his and his family’s safety. The said act on the part of the respondent is also likely to crode the trust of the petitioner on the respondent. In these facts normal matrimony between the parties cannot be expected to be resumed. The parties have also been living separately since the last more than eight years and thus the marriage has also been irretrievably broken down between the parties.
33. In view of above discussion and the findings on issue no.1, the petition is allowed and the marriage between parties xxxxxx and xxxxxx is dissolved with a decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) HMA.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
Leave A Comment