Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Sunil Kumar Sinha & R.N. Chandrakar
Sangeeta Shukla Vs. Ganesh Shukla On 1 January 2014
Law Point:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Appellant-wife, was not doing any domestic work and used to quarrel with him and go to her parents’ place — She lodged report against her in-laws and husband amounted to cruelty against them — On these grounds respondent-husband entitled to divorce.
JUDGEMENT
Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 28th of October, 2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 74-A/2005 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, the appellant/defendant (wife) has filed this appeal.
2. By the impugned judgment and decree, a petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff (husband) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and a decree of divorce has been granted in his favour.
3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.6.1998. After the marriage, the appellant was residing in her matrimonial house along with her father-in-law and two mothers-in-law. According to the respondent, initially their relations were cordial. However, later on, the appellant started cruel behaviour with her mothers-in-law. She also started cruel behaviour with the respondent. She used to rise late in the morning. When it was opposed by the respondent, she used to quarrel with him. She used to press him for taking to hotels and for purchasing unnecessary articles. The respondent fulfilled the said demands for sometime, but later on, he denied to do all this on account of paucity of fund. The appellant did not take interest in preparing meals. When she was told for this, she used to quarrel. She used to abuse the family members of the respondent. The appellant used to leave the utensils and her cloths unwashed, which were being washed by her mothers-in-law. She simply used to sit for watching television and reading novels even in the late night, due to which, the respondent suffered from insomnia. Even at the time of illness of the respondent, the appellant did not show any sympathy and she did not take his care. When the respondent used to inculcate her, she used to quarrel with him. The appellant lodged a false report in Mahilla Police Station on which the family members of the respondent were called there for 20-25 times. Thereafter, the appellant left the house of the respondent on 4.4.2000 and since the said date, she started living with her parents. It is in all these circumstances, a petition for grant of decree of divorce on cruelty was filed by the respondent on 24.7.2000, which came to be registered as Civil Suit No. 74-A/2005.
4. When the notice of the civil suit was received by the appellant, thereafter the appellant lodged a First Information Report in Mahilla Thana, Raipur on 17.8.2000. On this report, a criminal case under Section 498A, IPC was registered and the respondent, his father and mothers were arrested and later on released on bail from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 19.8.2000. Apart from the above grounds relating to physical and mental cruelty, the respondent took this ground also as an instance of cruelty by making necessary amendment in the petition (plaint) vide para 15A on 19.7.2003.
5. The appellant denied the above allegations of cruelty raised in the plaint. She made allegations that after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started demanding dowry. They used to tease her on bringing less dowry. They used to give cruel treatments to her even by assaulting her. She made allegations that her elder mother-in-law used to assault her on petty matters. The respondent used to throw water on her after being angry against her. On 3.3.2000, she was forcibly driven out from her matrimonial home. About the institution of criminal complaint, she pleaded that since the respondent and his family members had treated her with cruelty on account of demand of dowry, therefore, a report under Section 498A, IPC was lodged on which a criminal case was pending.
6. The learned Judge, Family Court framed issues on 17.2.2005 and called upon the parties to lead their evidence. The respondent/plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and his father, Tulsi Prasad, was examined as P.W. 2. The appellant/defendant examined herself as D.W. 1 and she also examined three more witnesses namely Tejdhar Pandey (D.W. 2), Vipin Mishra (D.W. 3) and Sohan Lal Pandey (D.W. 4).
7. The learned Judge, Family Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty, therefore, the respondent was entitled for grant of decree of divorce. Thus, a decree of divorce was granted in favour of the respondent. Hence this appeal.
8. Mr. N.K. Vyas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the evidence of treating the appellant with cruelty is writ large on record; finding that the appellant has treated the respondent with cruelty is perverse; therefore, the decree cannot be sustained. He further argued that the Family Court has not granted permanent alimony while passing the decree of divorce. In case the decree is maintained, suitable permanent alimony may be granted in favour of the appellant. He referred to various documents relating to properties of the respondent.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Das Vaishnav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has opposed these arguments advanced on the question of cruelty. He emphasized on many judgments while canvassing that lodging of a false First Information Report by the wife was a cruelty against the husband. He brought to our notice that in the criminal case arising out of the said report, the husband and his family members have already been acquitted and the judgment has not been challenged before any higher Forum. About the alimony, he submitted that the respondent is practising as a Lawyer in District Court, and it would be difficult for him to provide a high sum on account of permanent alimony and maintenance.
10. We have heard Counsel for the parties.
11. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) provides various grounds for granting divorce such as cruelty, adultery and desertion, etc. It reads as under:
“13. Divorce—(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 —
(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation— In this Clause—
(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;
(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or
(iv) has been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or
(v) has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or
(vii) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive.”
12. Cruelty has not been defined in the Act. Besides the physical cruelty, “mental cruelty” is also included in cruelty referred to in Section 13. In Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur, II (2010) DMC 706 (SC)=VII (2010) SLT 282=AIR 2010 SCW 6160, which was also relied by Mr. Vyas, the Supreme Court held that no uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, however, some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty” may be enumerated. Following instances were enumerated saying that they are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) 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.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse 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.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party and longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself 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 continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feeling and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
13. In the instant case, the Family Court has firstly dealt with the evidence to find out as to whether the appellant was treated with cruelty by the respondent, as she alleged in the written statement and whether she had a reasonable ground to leave the house of the respondent. The Family Court has recorded a finding that it was not proved on record that the appellant was treated with cruelty by the respondent. Her oral evidence and the evidence produced by the respondent have been properly appreciated. The appellant has contended that the respondent started treating her with cruelty just after the marriage. However, the two letters (Exs.-P/l and P/2) written by the appellant, one of which was of 7.10.1998, would reveal that there was nothing like that. Letter dated 7.10.1998 would show that the appellant herself had tendered apology for some earlier mistakes committed by her. She did not mention about treating her with cruelty or she did not make allegations against the respondent or his family members. Even there is nothing about demand of dowry, etc. in these letters.
14. On the contrary there are three reports (Exs.-P/3, P/7 and P/8) sent by the respondent to Mahilla Police Station mentioning therein his grievances against the appellant and her parents. Many instances of ill-behaviour of the appellant are mentioned in these reports. These are the complaints pertaining to the year 2000. One is of 7.1.2000 and the two others are of 1.8.2000 given to the different authorities. The appellant has contended that the respondent and his family members were very much keen about the dowry and they did not allow her to visit her parents’ place. However, from these letters and complaints it does not appear so. On the contrary, it comes on record that the appellant was frequently visiting her parents’ place, and for some unintimated visit she herself has tendered apology.
15. The father of the appellant, Sohan Lal Pandey (DE-4), has stated that the appellant was telling that once the respondent had pressed her neck and she was about to die. However, these facts are not there in the pleading of the appellant.
16. It is on all these reasons, the Family Court has held that it was not established that the appellant was being treated with cruelty by the respondent and his family members and she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 3.3.2000.
17. The said finding appears to be correct in light of the above material available on record.
18. The respondent has pleaded many instances of cruel behaviour against him by the appellant. The Family Court has dealt with all these instances. The respondent has deposed that the behaviour of the appellant against his family members was cruel and insulting. She used to wake up at 8.00 a.m., whereas the other family members used to wake up at 6.00 a.m. She was not doing any domestic work. When she was being told about all this, she used to abuse his parents. In November, 1998, he was operated for a corn in the log, but even after sending message to the appellant she did not return from her parents’ place. At that time, her parents’ place was at Raipur itself. Most oftenly, when he used to tell the appellant to do some work, she used to quarrel with him and go to her parents’ place.
19. He further deposed that the appellant was pressing, that the tenants from their house should be removed and her parents may be allowed to live in their premises. On 13.12.1999, the appellant had lodged a report in Mahilla Police Thana. It was a false report. Finding this, the dispute was pacified. Thereafter the appellant came to their house, but very shortly, she left their house and lodged a First Information Report on 17.8.2000. The respondent has further deposed that this report was lodged when the notice of divorce case was served upon her. The copy of the report is Ex.-P/9. In this report, the appellant made allegations of treating her with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. On the said report, a criminal case under Sections 498A/34, IPC was registered against the respondent (husband), his father, Tulsi Prasad (PW-2 – father-in-law) and Thagiya Bai and Girija Bai (mothers-in-law). They were arrested in the said case and were released on bail by the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate.
20. Father of the respondent namely Tulsi Prasad (PW-2) has supported the evidence of respondent (PW-1) on material aspects.
21. Though they were put to lengthy cross-examinations, but nothing material could be brought against their testimonies. The Family Court, considering all above circumstances, held that in the above facts situation lodging of the report by the wife against the husband and in-laws was cruelty against the husband, and on these grounds the husband was entitled for divorce.
22. Mr. Vaishnav has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli, I (2002) DMC 266 (SC)=I (2002) SLT 153=AIR 2002 SC 576. There also a criminal complaint was filed by the wife. The Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, observed in para-8, we quote:
“8. Another important incident, which found favour with the Family Court is that the respondent had filed a criminal complaint before the police alleging that she was beaten by the appellant and his mother. The appellant and his mother were called to the police station and they had to be there for more than 10 hours. The explanation offered by the respondent for this incident is far from satisfactory. According to the respondent, she was being ill-treated by the appellant and his mother, and on one day, while preparing the breakfast when she used the blender for grinding the pulses, her mother-in-law got angry and scolded her saying that she had not brought any article from her house, so she should not have used the blender. Further, the respondent alleged that the appellant and his mother threw away all her bags and clothes and the appellant’s mother asked her son to get the respondent out and the appellant became wild and gave a blow to the respondent with a sharp-edged weapon and it was under those circumstances that with bleeding injuries, she had gone to the police station and filed a complaint before the police. It is important to note that the police did not register any case evidently as it was domestic quarrel and not of a serious nature, and the incident shows the innate lack of self-control which had driven the respondent to this inexorable conduct. But the humiliation and agony suffered by the appellant and his mother, considering their status in life and the social circumstances, was too much.”
23. In Narendra Kumar Gupta v. Indu, AIR 2002 Raj. 169 (DB), in similar situation, it was held that a case of cruelty was made out against the husband and he was entitled for divorce.
24. In Smt. Kavita v. Harish Raisen, 2006 (2) MPHT 515 (DB), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh also took similar view holding that the act of the lodging of a criminal case, getting the respondent arrested and opposing his bail were the acts which amount to cruelty and therefore, the conclusion recorded by the Court below was perfectly justified.
25. Further, in Smt. Mamta Shrivastava v. Taresh Kumar Shrivastava, I (2010) DMC 683 (DB)=2009 LT 91 Chhat. (DB), this Court also took similar view.
26. In the instant case, the criminal case prosecuted against the respondent, his father and two mothers was disposed of on 25.7.2006 and all were acquitted.
27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the behaviour of the appellant with the respondent and his family members and ultimately leaving the house of the respondent by her and then lodging a report under Section 498A, IPC in which the respondent and his parents were arrested and prosecuted, we are of the view that a case of mental cruelty was made out and the respondent was entitled for a decree of divorce.
28. Now we shall consider the argument regarding permanent alimony.
29. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for permanent alimony and maintenance. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 provides that any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the Court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. In the instant case, no alimony has been granted by the Family Court. In appeal, an application, I.A. No. 3/2006, was filed by the appellant setting the terms for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent. In the said application, she demanded certain property and permanent alimony of Rs. 25 lakh.
This was not acceptable to the respondent, therefore, the parties could not agree for divorce or mutual consent and prayed for deciding their case on merits. Mr. Vyas has argued that in case, the decree of divorce is confirmed, the appellant may be granted suitable alimony. Many documents relating to property of the husband and his family members have been filed. According to them, the respondent has two ancestral houses in Raipur in Ward No. 62. Besides the above, documents relating to agricultural land in village Temri has been filed. Mr. Vaishnav has admitted about existence of two ancestral houses, however, he has submitted that the document of agricultural land is of the year 1999 which land has been later on sold. The respondent is a practising lawyer. He told to the Court that he is practising in the District Court since 2007. He is the only son in the family. The portions of houses are let out on rent. The appellant has no earning. Thus, it is a case in which suitable amount towards permanent alimony and maintenance must be granted. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the general information supplied to us by both the parties and further considering that there is no evidence to show that the appellant is having some independent earning, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to get sum of Rs. 5,000 (Five thousand only) per month as permanent alimony from the respondent.
30. In the result, while confirming the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent, we direct that the respondent shall pay sum of Rs. 5,000 per month as permanent alimony to the appellant in terms of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The first instalment shall be paid by 10th of January, 2014 and the further monthly instalments shall be paid between 1st and 10th day of every month.
31. The parties shall bear their own cost(s).
32. A decree be drawn accordingly.
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