Court:Delhi High Court
Bench: JUSTICES Pradeep Nandrajog, J. & Yogesh Khanna
Sanjiv Kumar Jindal Vs Anil Kumari @ Neelam On 21 November 2016
Law Point:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib)— Mental cruelty — Desertion — Depression — Suppression of disease — Leaving matrimonial home without informing — Unilateral termination of pregnancy — Respondent-wife left her matrimonial home without informing her husband — Evidence was led evincing that respondent-wife was under psychiatric treatment — Conduct of respondent-wife deposed by appellant-husband on oath is consistent with paranoid behaviour of respondent-wife — Respondent-wife has not examined her father who would be best witness to establish dowry demands — It is not a simple case of oral evidence which would be in category of word of mouth versus word of mouth — Totality of evidence establishes not only mental cruelty but even desertion — Appellant-husband entitled to annulment of marriage by grant of decree for divorce.
JUDGEMENT
The thematic setting of the case pleaded by the appellant seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized on December 18, 1999 with the respondent as per Hindu Rites and Customs is that right from day one of the marriage the attitude of the respondent was cold towards him and his family members. Residing with his parents, appellant’s mother had to perform all household chores. As a working lady, the respondent would leave the house early morning at 8.00 A.M. This queer conduct of respondent baffled the appellant and his parents who discussed the same with parents of the respondents but got no satisfactory answer. Returning home late everyday, when questioned, respondent would tersely say that nobody had a right to interfere in her personal life. On the occasion of the marriage of her brother the respondent left the matrimonial home on June 10, 2000, by which date she was in the family way but did not tell the appellant or his family members of the same. She never returned to her matrimonial house and gave birth to a male child on March 29, 2001, for which no information whatsoever was given to the appellant or his family members and this caused immense mental torture when they learnt that the respondent was blessed with a male child. All of a sudden, on June 02, 2001, accompanied by the infant son born, the respondent and her father came to the parental house of the appellant and assured that henceforth respondent would behave properly. The couple were united. Initially respondent behaved normally but with the passage of time she became rude and callous. She even started abusing the appellant and his family members causing humiliation and immense mental cruelty. She behaved abnormally alleging that appellant’s family members were stealing her medicines. The appellant thought it advisable to shift from the house of his parents and thus took on rent a residential accommodation at Rani Bagh. In March 2002 the appellant learnt that the respondent was once again in the family way but she aborted the pregnancy. On the same dates in July 2003, appellant’s mother and minor child had to be hospitalized. Unmindful that the appellant could not be at two hospitals and had to be where his mother was admitted, the respondent refused to be with the child admitted in the other hospital. Appellant’s mother was admitted at Ganga Ram hospital and the child at G.T.K. hospital. The respondent would keep aloof and talk to herself. Things did not improve. On May 13, 2005, the appellant took the respondent to Vaishno Devi, and in the train she behaved abnormally by standing near the door of the train and did not pay heed to appellant’s request not to do so. That on March 20, 2007, the respondent vanished from the matrimonial house and this compelled the appellant to lodge a missing person complaint. Respondent returned the next day and said that she had gone to Vaishno Devi. On March 21, 2007 the respondent permanently deserted the appellant and went to her parental house. She did not return, till when the petition was filed in the year 2010.
2. In the written statement, the respondent denied that her behaviour was humiliating or of a kind which caused mental trauma to the appellant or his parents. She pleaded that her entire salary was pocketed by her in- laws who would torture her for dowry. She said that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house when her brother got married due to trauma inflicted upon her consequent to dowry demands. She admitted that while staying with her parents a male child was born to her. She admitted returning back to her matrimonial house on June 02, 2001 and living separately with her husband. She denied leaving the house to make a trip to Vaishno Devi on March 20, 2007. She denied all other allegations, admitting that since March 21, 2007 she was living with the parents.
3. The appellant examined himself as his witness and the respondent examined herself as a witness. It thus became a word of mouth versus a word of mouth; with the documentary evidence in the form of missing persons complaint Ex.PW-1/9 lodged by the appellant and Ex.PW-1/5 being certificate issued by the competent authority in the office of the respondent showing that for purpose of abortion the appellant had availed leave in the month of February, 2002. Other exhibited documents are not being noted because they are irrelevant.
4. Truth seeps out when least expected. Notwithstanding the appellant not having pleaded the respondent suffering from some kind of a mental disability, we find that in cross-examination the respondent has admitted as under:
“I cannot say from which date I am not feeling well. After the marriage, I got started treatment. I am suffering from the disease of the depression. Now, I am not taking any treatment. I have got a treatment from Maharaja Agrasain Hospital from the doctor Sh.Rajiv. Lastly I had got treatment of Dr.Gupta in 2010. After 2010 I did not take any treatment from any doctor. I had signed all the papers which filed in the Court.”
5. The respondent has led no evidence that her entire salary was withdrawn, a fact which she could have easily proved with reference to her bank record.
6. Deviating a little it assumes relevance to note that when instant proceedings out of which impugned order was passed, which commence in the year 2010, the appellant had sought custody of Vishal, the son born to the parties and simultaneously evidence was being recorded in G.P.No.48/2010.
7. The same Judge who has authored the impugned judgment decreed appellant’s petition on May 11, 2015. Impugned decision dismissing appellant’s petition seeking divorce is dated December 22, 2014.
8. It appears that the Counsel for the appellant led better evidence in the Guardianship Petition for the reason, in said case the respondent was confronted with the evidence of making a trip to Vaishno Devi on March 20, 2007. She admitted that she went to Vaishno Devi without informing her husband but said she did not to seek divine blessings. Evidence was led in said case evincing that the respondent was under psychiatric treatment at Maharaja Agrasain hospital, Psychiatric Centre Santulan and Ram Manohar Lohia hospital. Since the record was with the respondent she hid the complete record as has been observed in the order dated May 11, 2015, but her claim that she started suffering from depression since the year 2009 was found to be false inasmuch as there was evidence that she was undergoing psychiatric treatment from a date prior thereto.
9. The conduct of the respondent which has been pleaded by the appellant and in respect of which he could do no more other than depose on oath is consistent with the paranoid behaviour of the respondent. This explains her leaving house early and returning late evening. This explains her accusing her in-laws of stealing her medicines. It is apparently a case where the respondent hid the truth of her suffering from, if not more, at least depression. The appellant and his family members were just not able to understand what was happening. Her abusive behaviour. Her leaving the house without informing her husband. Her going to Vaishno Devi without informing her husband.
10. The respondent has not examined her father who would be the best witness to establish the dowry demands.
11. Admission by the respondent in the instant case of her suffering from depression; denial by her in the instant petition of leaving her matrimonial house without informing to visit Vaishno Devi on March 20, 2007, but proved in the Guardianship Petition are telling evidence in favour of the appellant and against the respondent and we see no reason to disbelieve the appellant regarding the rest. It is thus not a simple case of oral evidence which would be in the category of word of mouth versus word of mouth. The unilateral termination of the second pregnancy by the respondent proved by Ex.PW-1/5 adds on to the mental torture inflicted upon the appellant.
12. Regretfully, these aspects have been overlooked by the learned Judge, Family Court.
13. The totality of the evidence establishes not only mental cruelty but even desertion and thus the appellant would be entitled to the marriage being annulled by grant of decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty as well as desertion.
14. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated December 22, 2014 is set aside. HMA No. 11/2010 filed by the appellant is allowed. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is annulled by passing a decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
15. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout.
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