Court: Rajasthan High Court
Bench: JUSTICES Pradeep Nandrajog, CJ. & Vinit Kumar Mathur
Lalit Kumar Mehta Vs Sanjeeta On 12 July 2018
Law Point:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Mental Cruelty — Appreciation of evidence — Marriage never took off — Rash actions of respondent wife under trivial matters — Since childhood respondent-wife was obstinate — She was taking anti-depressant medicines even before her marriage and post marriage — Probably this affected her mental behaviour — She would react disproportionately on trivial issues — Documents proved by respondent-wife do not bring out any dowry demand being the cause of harassment to her — These letters are written by respondent to her mother and she herself proved same — Couple from the very inception could not set up their matrimonial home — Appellant-husband not earning enough — For job he had to stay with his friends and respondent could not join him — This may have aggravated frustration of respondent — But fact of matter is that marriage never took off — Both were at initial stage of their careers and had to acquire higher educational qualifications to settle down in life — Despite attempts they failed to ensure that after permanent jobs obtained by two, they could set up matrimonial house — Marriage did not result in a bond being created between couple as was expected — In such circumstances insistence by one spouse to preserve dead marriage could be treated as an act of cruelty — Marriage between parties annulled by decree of divorce to appellant.
JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.2.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dismissing the petition filed by the appellant on 5.5.1989 seeking decree of divorce on ground of cruelty against the respondent.
2. Marriage between the appellant and the respondent as per Hindu customs was solemnized on 27.6.1985.
3. Case pleaded by the appellant is that after the marriage was solemnized in the year 1985 in Jodhpur, he took the respondent to his house at Udaipur where she was welcomed and respected by the appellant and his parents.
4. The respondent expressed a desire to obtain a degree of post graduate in Medicine from either Udaipur or Jodhpur. She got admission at Jodhpur in Preventive and Social Medicine. However, after some time, she joined the project of Indian Council of Medical research at Udaipur due to the advantage that she could get admission in PG Course after one year.
5. In order to get higher education, the appellant secured admission in Govind Vallabh Pant Hospital, Delhi in September, 1985 as a trainee. He started living with his friend Deepak Raj Pareek at Delhi. Whenever he got time he used to visit Udaipur from Delhi and on such occasions, the attitude of the respondent towards the appellant was not cordial and good, rather her behaviour was cruel causing mental tension and harassment to the appellant.
6. In November, 1985 the appellant’s brother arranged a trip for the appellant and the respondent and both visited South India. One Suresh Jain and his wife also accompanied them. However, during this visit the conduct and behaviour of the respondent was not good and cordial, resulting in frustration and destroying the pleasure of the journey, apart from causing mental depression, harassment and humiliation to the appellant in the eye of his friend and his wife.
7. As per the appellant, he was appointed by the State Government in the Government Hospital, Kanod as officer and respondent was also appointed in the Government Hospital at Mungana. However, the respondent did not accept the Government service and even she did not allow the appellant to join the Government service and she threatened that in case the appellant joined the service she would die and because of this the appellant has to leave the Government service which resulted in causing mental agony and humiliation to him.
8. In September, 1986, the appellant and the respondent visited Chandigarh for interview. Both of them were offered appointment by the State of Haryana, but neither she joined nor allowed the appellant to join the service.
9. According to the appellant, though the respondent took admission in D.G.O. Diploma in Udaipur, but she used to ask the appellant to make a job available for her. The appellant made efforts to arrange job for her and whenever job was offered to her, she used to deny the offer. Such attitude of the respondent causes mental depression and harassment to the appellant.
10. The appellant has joined service in Hansi (Haryana). His friend Deepak Raj came to Udaipur for an operation and in order to look after his friend the appellant came to Udaipur with him and on this the respondent raised protest in front of Deepak Raj and made uncalled for comments causing mental agony, humiliation and harassment to the appellant.
11. The respondent used to visit the house of appellant at Hansi where she did not allow the appellant to treat the patients and she used to quarrel with him by throwing the glass etc. towards appellant. She asked the appellant that whenever he writes letter to his friends, the same should be posted only after she read them. Such behaviour of the respondent caused mental depression and harassment to the appellant.
12. On the insistence of the respondent, the appellant managed service for her in the same Hospital at Hansi, but she refused to join.
13. According to the appellant, because of respondent’s stubborn attitude and threats to commit suicide, the appellant lost the chance to join Bhabha Research Institute and he was also compelled to leave the post of Registrar in Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital. This resulted in enhancement of the mental agony of the appellant.
14. Further case of the appellant is that the respondent without any cause used to quarrel with him and left the house alone and remained outside for whole night and such act on the part of the respondent lowered down the image of the appellant in the society.
15. On the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, the appellant wanted to take the respondent to Udaipur and for that they stayed in Delhi in the house of Deepakraj Pareek where respondent refused to go Udaipur or Jodhpur. When efforts to persuade her failed, the appellant asked the parents of the respondent to come Delhi. When respondent came to know that her mother was coming to Delhi, she went to Hansi from Delhi without any intimation and tried to commit suicide but due to intervention of appellant’s friends she could not commit suicide. On account of such attitude of the respondent the appellant always remained in mental tension.
16. In 1986 before Diwali, appellant’s brother and sister came to Delhi in car and appellant and respondent also reached there. They all intended to go Udaipur together. However, the respondent became angry only on the issue that the appellant was talking with his brother and sister in Mewadi language. In front of them, the respondent made abusive and uncalled for comments against the appellant and left alone without any information to the Bus Stand where she spent the whole night. Efforts were made to search the respondent and in the morning she telephoned Deepak Raj that she was speaking from the Bus Stand and was going to paradise and will never come back. Upon this, Deepak Raj and his wife went to the Bus Stand and after persuasion brought back the respondent to the house. The parents of the respondent were informed about the incident and asked to visit Delhi, but they did not come. The respondent went to the house of her Mausi in Delhi. In such a situation, the appellant instead of going to Udaipur came to Hansi and his brother and sister went to Udaipur.
17. In December, 1986 or January, 1987 the respondent again took admission in D.G.O. at Udaipur, but instead of living in the house of the appellant, she started living in the house of one Shri Jaswant Lal Mehta.
18. Looking to the cruel behaviour and conduct of the respondent causing mental depression, harassment and humiliation to the appellant and his family members, the appellant gave a notice to the respondent for mutual divorce. However, she did not agree and made false allegation of dowry.
19. In November, 1987, the father, maternal uncle and aunty of the respondent tried for a settlement but the respondent did not change her behaviour.
20. In the first week of April, 1988 the respondent came to appellant at Rohtak. The appellant did not want to keep the respondent with him as he himself was living with his friend. After asking of the respondent the appellant accompanied her to Delhi. At Delhi Bus Stand the respondent quarrelled with the appellant as a result of which crow gathered and tried to beat the appellant, but due to intervention of the police he was saved from the wrath of the crowd.
21. In 1988, on the occasion of Laxmi Poojan in the house, the respondent was brought by the appellant from the Medical College Girls Hostel where she was living, but on reaching the house she started quarrelling and caused humiliation and harassment to appellant’s father and other family members. She did not take part in Pooja and left the house and reached Jagdish Temple and sat on the staircase. This act of the respondent caused mental agony to the appellant and his family members.
22. According to the appellant, he came to know that the respondent was suffering from mental disease prior to marriage and she never remained healthy. The fact of mental disease of the respondent was not brought to the notice of the appellant by the parents of the respondent after the marriage and thus he was cheated and on this ground alone marriage is liable to be declared void.
23. In the written statement filed the respondent denied the allegations levelled against her and specifically pleaded in the caption “special mention” that she was subjected to cruelty, misbevaiour and ill-treatment at the hands of the appellant and his parents and such attitude was for and in connection with demand of dowry. It was pleaded that the appellant and his parents were greedy and their conduct and behaviour with her was not proper and was uncivilized. After engagement when the father of the respondent went to Udaipur to fix the date of marriage the father of the appellant and his cousin brother asked to bring “Teeka”. When her father expressed his inability to fulfil this demand, the atmosphere became tense and the engagement was nearly called of but at that time the situation was properly handled by the appellant. After marriage was solemnized the father of the appellant lost his patience and demanded bus fare and precious articles and goods. The demand was fulfilled. However, since the appellant’s father did not get sufficient dowry, he started torturing her both mentally and physically. The appellant did not object to such attitude by his father towards her. The respondent expected her husband to support her but he did not do so. The parents of the appellant used to abuse her, make false allegations and humiliate her and her family members only with a view to achieve the object that she leaves the house so that second marriage of the appellant could be arranged. The respondent always discharged her duties as wife of the appellant but she received humiliation and harassment all times at the hands of parents of the appellant.
24. It has been pleaded in para 1 of the written statement that appellant himself is of obstinate nature and no reliance can be placed on his version. It is wrong to say that she was welcomed by the parents of the appellant when she reached the matrimonial house, rather she was ill-treated by the appellant and his family members. They told her “Bhogli” and compelled her to sleep on the floor with dirty sheet. Such act on the part of parents of the appellant was due to sufficient dowry not given to them by the father of the respondent.
25. The respondent admitted that she wanted to get admission in clinical subject and the same was made available to her, but pleaded that the appellant did not permit her to take admission in clinical subject and compelled her to take admission in Preventive and Social Medicine. He forced him to leave said course and join project work at Udaipur due to economical conditions.
26. It was pleaded that as per saying of the appellant, she stayed with his parents at Udaipur for one year and suffered ill- treatment and misbehaviour.
27. That the respondent never misbehaved with the appellant and his family members nor made any undue demand. Her conduct and behaviour was always good and cordial towards the appellant and his parents.
28. Pertaining to the pleading in the petition that with the object of creating a bond between the parties the appellant took the respondent for a holiday in South India, the respondent admitted having gone with the appellant to South India but pleaded that his friend Suresh Jain and his wife along with appellant’s nephew Sunil accompanied them. Sunil used to sleep in the same room in which the appellant and respondent used to sleep and thus, the object of bonding was frustrated. She denied having behaved in a uncivilized manner during the trip.
29. Concerning the pleading that both visited Haryana to give an interview with the object of both getting a Government job, the respondent denied having refused to accept a job by the Government of Haryana and denied that she did not permit the appellant to get a Government job.
30. The respondent denied allegations of misbehaviour and ill-treatment in the presence of Deepak Raj. She denied having attempted to commit suicide. She denied going outside the house at night after quarrelling.
31. The respondent pleaded that in December, 1986 the appellant forcibly sent her to her parents’ house at Jodhpur. She pleaded that she went to Udaipur and thereafter took admission in DGO and because she could not get hostel accommodation she stayed with her maternal grand-father Jaswant Mal for a few days till she got admission in the hostel.
32. With respect to the averment that her maternal uncle and aunt attempted a settlement which failed, she pleaded that her mother and her paternal uncle took her to Delhi, but the appellant refused to keep her and thus she returned back.
33. She pleaded that in April, 1988 she went to live with the appellant at Rohtak but he refused to keep her. She denied any incident having taken place at Bus Stand at Delhi. She denied that she was suffering from any mental disease. She pleaded that prior to marriage she had completed her graduation and in July, 1990 obtained a post-graduate degree in DGO from Rajasthan University and in February, 1991 was selected as a Medical Officer by RPSC.
34. On aforesaid pleadings the issue settled was whether the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty entitling him to a decree of divorce.
35. In support of his version the appellant examined 11 witnesses including himself as AW1 and exhibited 41 documents. The respondent apart from examining herself as NAW1 examined 8 other witnesses and exhibited 57 documents.
36. From the case set up by the appellant it emerged that on the following points the appellant alleged cruelty:
“(i)
Conduct of the respondent towards the appellant and his family members was uncivilised from the very inception. She used to quarrel with the appellant and abuse him.
(ii)
Respondent’s stubborn and obstinate attitude during the visit to South India.
(iii)
Job being made available in Haryana to both but the respondent refusing to accept the same with the object of denying a permanent matrimonial house.
(iv)
When appellant’s friend Deepak Raj came to Udaipur for an operation she raised objections and quarrelled.
(v)
Respondent tried to commit suicide on Raksha Bandhan in 1986.
(vi)
Incident on Diwali day in the year 1986.
(vii)
Incident of the Bus Stand at Delhi.
(viii)
Incident at Udaipur on Diwali in 1988.”
37. The appellant-Dr.Lalit Kumar Mehta in his deposition as AW1 affirmed the factual averments made in the divorce petition. While affirming the marriage with respondent-Ms.Sanjita, he has stated that his wife had squabbled and quarrelled over the issue of her PG admission at ICMR, Udaipur and she alleged that he used to spend more time with parents not with her. Similarly while on trip to South India with a common friend, the respondent quarrelled with him over a petty issues i.e. his nephew going with them, places of stay, food and other things. Thereafter in Feb.1986 when Deepakraj Pareek stayed at his house for piles operation, she quarrelled with him over petty issues including use of abusive language against him and his parents.
38. Thereafter, in July-August 1986 when he was invited to join at Bhabha Institute, she threatened him that if he goes there leaving her, she would commit suicide and for this reason he could not join at Bhabha Institute. Further in 1986, on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, they decided to go to their respective places at Udaipur and Jodhpur but the respondent quarrelled with him so much so that he became afraid of going to his home. Further, his friends at Hansi Dr.Narendra Agarwal and Ved Prakash Goyal tried to persuade her but all in vain. Similarly when he took her to Deepakraj’s house at Delhi and when she came to know that he was about to call her parents she had quarrelled with him and even tried to commit suicide by choking and pressing her neck with her both hands. Thereafter, in Oct.1986, on the occasion of Diwali when his sister and other relatives came to his place, at that time she fought with them that they were talking in Mewadi language. She abused all of them and other family members also and even asked the appellant to sleep with his sister because he did not have any need of her.
39. After this incident, there was compromise talks first in Delhi and thereafter at Udaipur in November, 1986. She admitted her mistakes and agreed not to commit the same again and even she gave this in writing.
40. Thereafter, in 1988 at Delhi Bus Stand, the respondent quarrelled with him and abused him and his family and at that time, Delhi police came and took him for interrogation for fighting with the respondent. He informed about this to Deepakraj and upon this Deepakraj along with his wife came there and they tried to persuade the respondent, but she even fought with them. Thereafter, he took her to Udaipur. He refused to live with the respondent, but on again settlement, he started living with the respondent.
41. Thereafter, on the occasion of Diwali, she again quarrelled with him and even refused to participate in Pooja and Other programmes. He tried to persuade her but she kept on fighting and abusing him and his parents. There was no change in her. Thereafter, he did not meet her till May 1989. Meanwhile she used to live in Hostel at Udaipur and under these circumstances he could not live with her and hence filed the divorce case.
42. Shri Ved Prakash Agarwal, AW2, who is neighbour of appellant at Hansi, corroborated the version of the appellant as AW1 and affirmed the facts of fighting in 1986 by respondent. Thereafter he and her wife persuade to calm her. He also stated that she admitted about her attempt to commit suicide in front of his wife and him.
43. Shri Deepak Raj Pareek, AW3 who is friend of appellant at Delhi, corroborated the statements of appellant (AW1) and affirmed the dispute between them and also the facts of appellant living at his place while in training, attempt to commit suicide by respondent at Delhi many times, objection of Ms. sanjeeta for staying at Udaipur during treatment of piles, bringing respondent back at Delhi Bus Stand after persuading her in 1986 nearby Diwali.
44. Smt.Pushpa Devi, AW4 who is wife of Ved Prakash, corroborated the statements of AW1 and affirmed the facts of her going to appellant’s home with her husband where respondent was not opening the door and after persuasion, she opened the door and stated her in presence that she wanted to commit suicide, quarrel on the occasion of Deepawali when brother and sister of appellant came. She also states that she had delivered clothes and money given by Dr.Lalit for Sanjeeta to her at Delhi.
45. Smt. Chandrakala Pareek, AW5 (wife of Deepak Raj, AW3) corroborated the statements of AW1 and AW3 Deepakraj and also affirmed the facts of fighting between both parties during her husband’s Udaipur stay for treatment of piles, fighting during the Delhi stay of both parties on the issue of going to Udaipur because Sanjita did not want to go to Udaipur, settlement and placation of Sanjita at Hansi and bringing Sanjita back at Delhi Bus Stand, attempt to commit suicide at Hansi.
46. Shri Ishwar Lal Mehta, AW6 (brother of the appellant) corroborated the statements of AW1 and affirmed the facts of fighting between appellant and respondent at Hansi on the issue of not giving proper time when he went to Hansi to take them to Udaipur. He stated that he has seen the fighting only one and two times.
47. Shri Kalu Lal Bhandari, AW7 (neighbour of appellant) corroborated the statements of AW1 and affirmed the facts that he has heard some high voice in the night between appellant and his wife-respondent.
48. Shri Ghisu Lal, AW8 (neighbour of appellant at Udaipur) corroborated the statements of AW1 and affirmed the facts of cleaning of moped by Sanjita’s father-in-law and used to put moped out for Sanjita, also Kaka (Sanjita’s father-in-law) himself used to serve breakfast plate to Sanjita.
49. Shri Narendra Mehta AW9 (brother of appellant) corroborated the statements of AW1 and affirmed the facts of his going to Hansi, where respondent-Sanjita abused and fought with him and assaulted appellant by throwing vase and other things and after that Sanjita left the house.
50. Shri Dinesh Bhandari AW10 (neighbour of appellant at Udaipur) corroborated the statements of AW1 and affirmed the facts of tension and quarrel between appellant-husband and respondent-wife and apparent fight between them.
51. Shri Chattar Lal Mehta (father of appellant) AW11 corroborated the statements of AW1 and affirmed the facts of fighting between his son and his wife and use of abusing language by respondent to him. He also stated that Sanjita did not participate in Pooja at Diwali on his shop.
52. The respondent-wife-Sanjita in her statement recorded in Court as NAW1 has admitted her marriage with the appellant as per Hindu customs. However, it was stated that her laws were not happy with the dowry given by her parents at the time of marriage. They demanded fare of the bus as also gift for the members of the marriage (barati) and as a result of which there was tension. She stated that her father at that time gave 15 to 18,000 and also clothes as per their demand.
53. She has stated that when she reached Udaipur, instead of welcoming her, she was disrespected and ill-treated by her in-laws and indicating towards her clothes, they called her “Bhogli”. They used to tease, harass and humiliate her for and in connection with demand of dowry. She and her sister were compelled to sleep in the night on a dirty sheet. She has stated that they laughed at the goods which she brought. Her father-in-law demanded the amount of her internship on Raksha Bandhan.
54. She filled up the PG form in Jodhpur with the consent of her husband and as per his saying, she joined M.D. in P.S.M. subject. However, the appellant did not like her living at Jodhpur and as desired by him, she left the study of M.D. and went to Udaipur with her husband.
55. She has further stated that the appellant went to Delhi to take training in G.B.Pant Hospital. He husband was doing honorary work. After 3-4 days of her husband leaving for Delhi she joined the project of Dr.Jain at Udaipur. The conduct and behaviour of the appellant was good, but in-laws’ was not good and they used to tease, harass, humiliate and quarrel with her. She was compelled to do all work of home including preparing of tea, breakfast, food etc. before going to College and during that period, her mother-in-law and nanad did not help her and in this respect, she wrote 2-3 letters to her mother.
56. She admitted trip to South India with the appellant and his nephew. However, during that visit she did not quarrel with her husband, rather his nephew created disturbance on all issues and because of that, her husband felt inconvenience. She did not cause any inconvenience to her husband.
57. That she did not raise any objection when Deepak Raj came to Udaipur for his piles operation. Even she did not quarrel with her husband.
58. That on the insistence of the appellant she joined diploma in Gynecology. He assured her that they both would join at Hansi. After her husband went to Delhi and Hansi her father-in-law used to quarrel with her on almost all issues.
59. On the occasion of Diwali in 1985 when appellant came to Udaipur she did not quarrel with him. Her in-laws used to keep her husband busy with them and they did not allow her to talk with her husband even for 10 minutes.
60. In January, 1986 when her husband came to Udaipur she was ill. At that time, her father-in-law pushed her from Jafri alleging that she did not cook food and told that she would be ousted from the house after beating. Thereafter, her husband left for Delhi and after that behaviour of her in-laws and nanad towards her turned worst.
61. In March, 1986 she went to Hansi. On Holi she asked her husband not to send her to Udaipur and she wanted to live with him. Though at that time her husband did not agree to allow her to live with him, but she did not quarrel with him.
62. On 11th April, 1986 a letter was received from her husband that he was not well and upon this when she sought permission to arrange a talk between her mother-in-law and her husband, at that time, her father-in-law make uncalled for comments and told that he could not bear her expenses and he will call her parents and send her to her parents house for ever. On this, she talked with Pareek Sb. and wrote a letter but could not talk on phone with her husband. She asked Ms. Pareek to send her husband to Udaipur. Upon this, her husband came to Udaipur, but without solving the problems he went back and compelled her to live with his parents.
63. That in Hansi she did not quarrel with her husband and servants. Neither she used abusive language nor threw utensils and glass. He did not cause any humiliation or harassment to her husband in presence of anybody. She did not cause any obstruction in the work of her husband.
64. In 1986 at Raksha Bandhan she did not quarrel with her husband-appellant in regard to visit to Udaipur and did not attempt to commit suicide at that place.
65. That she never tried to commit suicide by taking ‘Nind-ki- goli’. She did not make any attempt to commit suicide at Hansi by hanging on fans. She did not threaten her husband to commit suicide if he joined Bhabha Research Institute. Her husband on his own did not join Bhabha Research Institute.
66. She admitted that she and her husband both got Government job in Sonipat, Haryana. But her husband did not want to join at that time, therefore, he sought extension for a month and the same was granted. However, due to intervening changed circumstances she was compelled to live at her parents house and thus she could not join job in Sonipat.
67. That in Diwali 1986 her Devar, Nanad and other relatives came to Hansi. They used to quarrel with her after her husband went to hospital. They used to talk in Mewadi instead of Hindi and they criticized her. They created such a situation compelling her to leave the house. She left for Delhi in the compelling circumstances and informed about the incident to Deepakraj. In Delhi she lived with her Mausi because she has no money to go to Jodhpur. Thereafter, her husband and relatives came to Delhi but did not take care of her. They enjoyed her ousting from the house and left for Udaipur.
68. That after Diwali her father-in-law and others came to Delhi at the house of Deepakraj where she and her husband were called. At that time, she disclosed all incidents, but she was rebuked and reprimanded and repeated old things. However, since her husband shown good behaviour and therefore, she went with him to Hansi.
69. That in December, her Jeth Ishwar Lal with Jilendra Mehta came to Hansi and told that her father-in-law was seriously ill and thus, they have to left for Udaipur. When she reached Udaipur with her husband, she saw that her father-in-law was fully well and he was not looking ill. On being asked about this pretext, at that time, her father in-law told her that this is the result of her going to Hansi against his will.
70. That on 24th December, her husband told her mother that since she was not well, therefore he did not want to live with her and he asked her mother to take her to Jodhpur. She refused to go Jodhpur and told that she would live with her husband and if she was ill, he was required to arrange for her treatment. The appellant then told that in case she did not go, he would take legal separation. At that time, her jeth, jethani, mother and tai were present. Despite her refusal, her mother accepted to take her to Jodhpur and she reached Jodhpur on 26th December,1986.
71. In January, 1987 in the third week she received a telephone from her Jeth that she has been selected in D.G.O. Course Udaipur, but nobody came to take her to Udaipur. She went Udaipur with her brother and took admission In D.G.O. Initially she remained with her Nana and after getting accommodation in hostel, he started living in Hostel.
72. In February, her Nanad Kanchan came to hostel and asked her why she was living in hostel and asked her to go home and along with her, there was one lady whom she did not know. They both closed the door of the room from inside and lighten agarbati and on her making hue and cry other girls of hostel came and got the room opened and on their asking to call warden, they went from the hostel.
73. In September, 1987 she received a notice asking her to take divorce with consent. She sent a reply to this notice.
74. On 4th December, 1987 she went to the shop of her Jeth and whatever was asked to write, she written and it was in the form of Mafinama. After settlement, she was taken to her Husband by her Jeth in Feb. 1988 at Rohtak. In April, 1988 she alone went to her husband at Rohtak and her husband did not like her living with him in hostel. She stayed there for a day and she and her husband reached Delhi. Her husband told her to go to the house of Deepakraj but she objected to this as she did not want to live in the house of Deepakraj as he humiliates her on trivial matters. She did not quarrel with her husband on the Bus Stand. Neither crowed gathered nor police came there. Due to paucity of time Smt.Chandra Pareek came to Bus Stand to deliver some goods and then they proceeded to Udaipur.
75. After settlement, her husband sends very meagre amount and he told her that in case of need of more money, she may take goods or money from his father. In 1988 she went to the house of her in-laws and asked her father-in-law to give some money for purchase of books etc. and upon this he became angry and did not give any money. Thus, he called money from her parents.
76. On the occasion of Diwali in 1988 she took part in the Laxmi Poojan and in the evening she went to Jagdish Temple with her husband and came back. She did not make any kind of quarrel with her in-laws on Diwali, 1988.
77. In February, 1989 her D.G.O. Course was over and upon this, she was her Jeth and father in-law as to where she would live and they refused to keep her with them. They threatened to kill her. Hence, she came to Jodhpur.
78. That her behaviour towards her husband and in-laws was good and she tried her best to adjust with her husband, but due to differences between her father and father-in-law and between her and her father-in-law she has to suffer the consequences. She was earlier ready to live in the house and still prepared to live with her in-laws house.
79. That neither prior to marriage nor today, she was suffering from any mental disease. The allegations in this respect are absolutely false and fabricated one. Before marriage, she did MBBS and after marriage she did PG in 1989-90 and in 1991 she passed examination of RPSC. Allegations have been falsely made to obtain a decree of divorce. After marriage, she never treated her husband with cruelty. She is still prepared to live with her husband without any condition. She did not want divorce.
80. NAW2 Ms.Sudha Bhandari stated that she got admission in MBBS in Medical College, Jodhpur in Jan.1979 and since then she knows the respondent. The respondent took admission in PSM and on being asked why she was leaving PSM, she told that she has been married and her in-laws did not like living at Jodhpur and therefore, she was leaving the course. Whenever she met with the respondent she felt that respondent was worried about her marital life and not about academic career. This witness has stated that her sister-Kamla helped the respondent financially when she was living in Hostel at Udaipur and suffering financial problem.
81. NAW3 Roop Singh Parihar is a witness who attended the marriage of respondent. He is the witness of incident after filing of divorce petition and written statement. Thus his statement cannot be taken.
82. NAW4 Surendra Kumar Bhansali, who is neighbour of Sanjita at Jodhpur, states that he knows the respondent and her family since Oct., 1982 as he lived as tenant in their house. He supported the version of the respondent. The appellant’s father demanded the money for bus fare and at the time of Vidai Ceremony, respondent stands near the tree for one and half hours due to non-payment of bus fare and gifts. In cross-examination this witness has stated that respondent was having a younger sister and it is correct that she was married and divorced. This witness has further stated that he did not take part in the settlement. It is wrong to stay that Dr. Kan Singh has not paid Rs. 18,000 towards bus fare etc. to Dr.Lalit.
83. NAW5 Dr.Sunil Mehta is brother of the respondent and supported her version. He stated that at the time of Vidai Ceremony there was controversy over bus fare and gifts and they paid 18,000 towards bus fare and gift items and during this controversy Sanjita stands near the tree for one and half hours.
84. NAW6 Mahendra Bhansali states that respondent is daughter of her Mausi. He attended the marriage of respondent. He did not know about whole incident after lapse of time. At the time of Vidai Ceremony, the procession was stopped for an hour due to demand raised by appellant’s father. Since he was busy in the work of food packing, he could only hear about demand and transaction
85. NAW7 Dr. Mahendra Bhansali states that respondent is daughter of his younger Mama and supported the demand of bus fare, gift for members of marriage party etc.
86. NAW 8 Swati Mehta is younger sister of the respondent and supported the statement of respondent. She accompanied her to Udaipur after marriage and corroborated the version of respondent about calling her Bhogli, cruel and ill-treatment by her in-laws for and in connection with demand of dowry and others incidents. She further stated that in 1986 on request of her sister they sent money order of Rs. 200 for purchasing of socks and other woolen items because her Jijaji was not giving money to her sister.
87. NAW 9 Kamla is sister of NAW 2 Ms.Sudha Bhandari and supported the version of respondent regarding incidents while she was living in hostel at Udaipur. She gave 500 to respondent on Diwali and 1,000 when she was suffering financial problem.
88. NAW10 Dr.Seema Sharma states that she knows the respondent since when she was doing DGO course in Udaipur. They both were living together in Hostel. This witness has worked with the appellant in the hospital at Delhi. The respondent and appellant both are good persons. She did not know the reasons why they involved in litigation. She never heard Sanjita uttering any word against her in-laws.
89. Since the parties have proved letters exchanged during the period post-marriage till when the petition seeking divorce was filed, it would be profitable to pen profile briefly the contents of the exhibited documents:
“Ex.1: Letter dated 5th June, 1986 written by respondent’s mother to the respondent in which the mother advises the daughter not to quarrel and abjure stubborn attitude.
Ex.2: Letter dated 10th June, 1986 written by respondent’s father and mother. The last part of the letter being relevant contains advice by the mother to the daughter that the obstinate behaviour which she used to show before marriage should be abjured by her.
Ex.3: Letter dated 20th June,1986 written by respondent’s mother to the respondent. On the second page whereof there is a mention of the respondent compelling her parents to fulfil her needs.
Ex.4: Letter dated 2nd November, 1986 written by respondent’s mother to the appellant expressing regret for actions of the respondent. Letter gives advice to the appellant to take care of his wife and help her to come out of depression.
Ex.5: Letter dated 27th December, 1986. This is a letter written by Ved Prakash to the appellant concerning attitude of the respondent.
Ex.6: Letter dated 3rd December, 1986 written by the appellant to his father stating that nothing had changed in the behaviour of the respondent and that the appellant was in fear that the respondent could do anything any time.
Ex.7: Letter dated 4th December, 1986. In this letter the appellant informs his father that things were becoming difficult for him because the respondent was always quarrelling.
Ex.8: Letter dated 29th December, 1986. This is a letter written by respondent’s mother to the parents of the appellant expressing regret over the actions of her daughter and acknowledging love and affection extended by the parents of the appellant towards the respondent.
Ex.9: Letter dated 29th December, 1986 written by respondent’s mother to appellant’s parents mentioning that there was some improvement in the behaviour of the daughter and acknowledging that the in-laws had maintained very cordial relations with the family.
Ex.10: Letter dated 29th January, 1987. The letter shows that the appellant was offered ad hoc appointment but cancelled since he did not join.
Ex.11: Letter dated 12th April, 1987 written by respondent’s mother to appellant’s elder brother acknowledging that the respondent was like a child and commits mistake during illness.
Ex.12: Letter dated 12th April, 1987 written by respondent’s mother to appellant’s mother once again acknowledging childish behaviour by the respondent and committing mistake when ill.
Ex.13: Letter dated 2nd June, 1987. It is a routine letter addressed by respondent’s mother to appellant’s mother.
Ex.14: Letter dated 6th July, 1987 written by respondent’s mother to appellant’s parents advising them to make efforts so that the relationship between the couple could be improved.
Ex.15: Letter dated 6th July, 1987 written by respondent’s mother to appellant’s mother acknowledging that the respondent was not interested in DGO Course and wanted to take admission in Jodhpur Medical College expecting that the respondent would regain confidence and her mental status would change.
Ex.16: Letter dated 3rd August, 1986 written by respondent’s mother to appellant’s mother acknowledging that her daughter’s behaviour was childish and simultaneously expressing hope that her attitude would change.
Ex.17: Letter dated 3rd August, 1987 written by respondent’s mother to appellant’s mother informing that since they did not come to Jodhpur the respondent’s mind was wrongly impacted and that respondent’s mother detected several misconception in the mind of the respondent from which it appeared that her behaviour was childish.
Ex.18: Letter dated 22nd August, 1987 written by respondent’s mother to the appellant informing that she can at best advice her daughter but cannot pressurize her.
Ex.19: Letter dated 5th November, 1987 written by respondent’s mother expecting that respondent’s behaviour will change and acknowledging that appellant’s family had always maintained cordial relationship with them.
Ex.20: Letter dated 5th November, 1987 addressed to the appellant by the respondent’s mother asking him to apprise her about the behaviour of the respondent when she came to Hansi, acknowledging that the respondent was under treatment of a psychologist.
Ex.21, Ex.22 & Ex.23: Letters dated 13th March, 10th September and 10th November, 1987 which are routine letters.
Ex.24: Letter dated 4th December, 1987 written by respondent’s mother acknowledging that due to the cooperation of the appellant’s parents and the appellant the dispute between the couple would be resolved.
Ex.25: Letter dated 7th March, 1987 written by respondent’s mother to the appellant containing a request to forgive past mistakes of the respondent and the mother taking responsibility for the future on behalf of the respondent.
Ex.26: Letter dated 4th December, 1987 written by the respondent to the appellant apologizing for the mistake committed by her in the past one and half years and the dowry issue was a mere misunderstanding acknowledging respondent’s suicidal tendency with justification that it was a blemish arising out of frustration with assurance that such conduct would not be repeated.
Ex.27: Letter dated 31st March, 1988 addressed by the respondent to appellant’s father acknowledging her mistakes and assuring improvement in her attitude pleading that she does not want a separation.
Ex.28: Letter dated 22nd April, 1988 written by the respondent to Mrs. Chandra Kanta Pareek seeking forgiveness for the incident which took place at the Bus Stand giving justification that since she had stopped taking medicines she was mentally upset and was not in a sound mental position when the incident took place.
Ex.29: Letter dated 21st May 1989 written by the respondent to Dr. Deepak Raj Pareek concerning the incident at ISBT, Delhi. The letter contained the request to Deepak Raj to intervene to sort out the issue.
Ex.30: Letter dated 22nd May, 1989 written by the respondent to the appellant acknowledging mistakes and requesting for forgiveness.
Ex.31: Undated letter written by the respondent to appellant’s brother Dinesh to convey her message to the appellant that she wants to meet him.
Ex.32: Undated letter written by the respondent to the appellant requesting to forgive her mistakes.
Ex.33: Letter dated 25th July, 1989 written by the respondent to Mrs.Pareek expressing apology for her behaviour.
Ex.34: Letter dated 30th March, 1992 written by the respondent to the appellant concerning divorce petition requesting for an out of Court settlement extending an apology for her past actions.
Ex.35: Letter dated 8.12.1987 written by respondent’s father to appellant’s brother-in-law Ishwar Lal Mehta to try and make efforts to settle the dispute.
Ex.36 to Ex.41: These are letters of different dates written by respondent’s father to Ishwar Lal Mehta containing an apology and requesting for a settlement and letters written by family members of the respondent.”
90. A brief pen sketch of the exhibits proved by the respondent would be:
“Ex.A1 to Ex.A6: These are photographs and with respect to the facial expression intended to establish a serious talk being held between the father of the appellant and the respondent after the marriage was solemnized.
Ex.A7: Letter dated 4.12.1987 written by the respondent to her parents concerning she apologizing to her in-laws with the rider that she did so at the instance of her parents.
Ex.A8: Letter dated 26.9.1985 written by the respondent to her mother that she was over loaded with the work in the house of her in-laws.
Ex.A9: Undated letter written by the respondent to her mother informing that she did not like the work at PSM.
Ex.A10: Letter of November, 1986 concerning respondent’s admission in PG Course mentioning that she was thinking of sending some money to the appellant from the stipend received by her.
Ex.A11: Letter dated 3rd January, 1986 written by the respondent to her mother informing that she had been unwell containing an admission that during this period the appellant stayed with her to take care of her.
Ex.A12: Letter dated 25.1.1986 written by the respondent informing her mother that the appellant was taking good care of her.
Ex.A13: Letter dated 1.3.1986 which is a routine letter.
Ex.A14: Letter dated 14.3.1986 written by the respondent to her mother that she was presently in Udaipur due to operation of Deepak Raj and that she was selected for DGO Course.
Ex.A15: Letter dated 12.4.1986 written by the respondent to her mother writing that her father-in-law was behaving like a Hitler and ill-treatment at the hands of her mother-in- law.
Ex.A16 to Ex.A24: These are routine letters.
Ex.A25: Letter dated 8.1.1987 written by the appellant to the respondent from Hansi advising her to take medicines regularly.
Ex.A26: Letter dated 22.10.1986 written by the respondent to her mother from Hansi informing that both have been selected in HPC.
Ex.A27 to Ex.A29: Letters dated 20th November and 30th November, 1986 written by the respondent to her mother from Hansi which are routine letters.
Ex.A30: Letter dated 10.2.1987 written by the respondent to her sister which is a routine letter.
Ex.A31: Notice dated 14.9.1987 sent by the appellant to the respondent seeking divorce by mutual consent.
Ex.A32: Reply dated 3.10.1987 by the respondent to the notice.
Ex.A33 to Ex.A34: These are routine letters.
Ex.A35: Letter dated 4.10.1988 written by the respondent to her parents stating that she was suffering mental agony and was tense.
Ex.A36: Letter dated 3.1.1987 written by the respondent to her father admitting that her behaviour has changed from 15th to 20th November, 1986 admitting that under depression something happened on Diwali and that she was wrong.
Ex.A37 to Ex.A41: Letters dated 2.4.1987 written by the respondent to her mother stating that she wanted judicial separation.
Ex.A42 to Ex.A44, Ex.A46 & Ex.A48: These are routine letters.
Ex.A45: Letter dated 18.1.1989 written by the respondent to her mother stating that she was suffering from depression.
Ex.A47: Letter dated 13.5.1986 written by the appellant from Hansi to the respondent stating that she was free and there was no one to fight with her.
Ex.A49 and Ex.A50: Letters dated 9.12.1988 and 11.1.1989 showing appellant sending 1000 by demand draft on two occasions to the respondent.
Ex.A51 to Ex.A53: These are routine letters.
Ex.A54: Letter dated 13.11.1989 written by respondent’s mother to the respondent informing not to give consent for a divorce.
Ex.A55: Letter dated 14.9.1989 written by respondent’s mother on similar lines as above.”
91. From a perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the learned Judge, Family Court has discussed the evidence with respect to the pleadings of the parties to return findings on individual incidents which were alleged, explained or denied, and the problem with the impugned judgment is that it does not take a holistic picture of the period post 27.6.1985 when the couple got married and when the petition seeking divorce was filed on 5.5.1989. The period spans just about four years. The impugned judgment notes the discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses of the appellant regarding various incidents alleged by the appellant to hold that the appellant has not proved his case. The documentary evidence has been ignored. With reference to Ex.P/26, addressed by the respondent to the appellant apologizing for the mistakes committed by her in the past one and half years, since the parties cohabited together thereafter the learned Judge has held that cruelty if any has been condoned by the appellant.
92. From the pleadings of the parties and the documentary evidence it emerges that after the marriage was solemnized on 27.6.1985 couple resided in the house of the appellant at Udaipur. At that stage neither had a settled job and both were trying to acquire better qualifications in the discipline of Medicine to further their career prospects. In September, 1985 the appellant took admission in Govind Vallabh Pant Hospital, Delhi and started living with his friend Deepak Raj Pareek but visited Udaipur whenever he got time. The couple went to South India for a holiday but unfortunately were accompanied by a friend and his wife and nephew of the appellant. The couple tried for a Government job in the State of Haryana but ultimately did not join Government service and we ignore whether the respondent was the cause whereof. The appellant joined service in Hansi and thus the couple could not reside together. The respondent took admission in DGO Course in Udaipur in December, 1986 or January 1987 but stayed in hostel. The telltale evidence is that the couple could not set up a matrimonial house. The couple’s family elders evinced by the documentary evidence tried their best that the couple get decent job and stay together but unfortunately this failed. Letters Ex.1, Ex.2 and Ex.4 do point out that the respondent was of an obstinate nature even before her marriage for the reason the mother cautioned the respondent to abjure obstinate behaviour in the house of her in-laws.
93. Ex.28, Ex.29 and Ex.30 are the admissions by the respondent concerning incidents which took place at Hansi and ISBT and if not more, proved rash actions of the respondent under trivial circumstances. The general tenors of the letters written by the respondent and her parents are apologetic qua the behaviour of the respondent and contained admissions that the probable reason thereof was the respondent not taking medicines.
94. Now, what medicines the respondent was taking has not surfaced, but from the contents of the documentary evidence it is apparent that the same were anti-depressant drugs.
95. The documents proved by the respondent do not bring out any dowry demand being the cause of harassment to her and it is important to highlight that these letters are written by the respondent to her mother and she herself has proved the same.
96. The totality of the evidence read as a whole brings out that since childhood the respondent was obstinate. She was taking anti-depressant medicines even before her marriage and post-marriage and probably this affected her mental behaviour. She would react disproportionately on trivial issues.
97. This is a case where the couple from the inception of their marriage could not set up their matrimonial house. Looking for a suitable job the appellant went firstly to Delhi then to Hansi. He was not earning enough. At both places he had to stay with his friend and thus the respondent could not join him. This may have have aggravated the frustration of the respondent. But the fact of the matter remains that the marriage never took off.
98. In a judgment dated October 21, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 36/2014, Sandhya Kumari v. Manish Kumar, III (2016) DMC 844 (DB) (Del.)=234 (2016) DLT 381 (DB), the Delhi High Court had noted that though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce, but in the judgments reported as 2006 (2) Mh.LJ 307, Madhvi Ramesh Dudani v. Ramesh K. Dudani; 2007 (4) KHC 807; Shrikumar V. Unnithan v. Manju K. Nair; II (1993) DMC 568 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 337; V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat and I (2006) DMC 489 (SC)=128 (2006) DLT 360 (SC)=III (2006) SLT 43=(2006) 4 SCC 558, Navin Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, the concept of cruelty has been blended by the Courts with irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The ratio of law which emerges from said decisions is that where there is evidence that the husband and wife indulge in mutual bickering, leading to remonstration and therefrom to the stage where they target each other mentally, insistence by one to retain the matrimonial bond would be a relevant factor to decide on the issue of cruelty, for the reason the obvious intention of said spouse would be to continue with the marriage not to enjoy the bliss thereof but to torment and traumatize the other.
99. Instant case may not be of mutual bickering, leading to remonstration and therefrom to the stage where the parties target each other mentally. The facts of the case are unique. The documentary evidence brings out that the marriage between the couple never took off from the very inception. Both were at the initial stage of their careers and had to acquire higher educational qualifications to settle down in life. Both made attempts to ensure that after permanent jobs were obtained by the two, they could set up the matrimonial house. Unfortunately, they failed. It is a case where the marriage did not result in a bond being created between the couple as was expected. In such circumstances insistence by one spouse to preserve the dead marriage could be treated as an act of cruelty.
100. For the reasons mentioned above the appeal is allowed. The marriage between the parties is annulled granting a decree of divorce to the appellant.
Appeal allowed.
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.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment