Suman Ramchandra Shetye (Smt.) Vs. Ramchandra Sakharam Shetye

Court: Bombay High Court

Bench: JUSTICE S Daud

Suman Ramchandra Shetye (Smt.) vs Ramchandra Sakharam Shetye on 13 January, 1989

Law Point:

Taunts, constant nagging, violence and insulting behaviour by Wife amounts to cruelty.

JUDGEMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a decree for divorce sans alimony passed against the appellant.

2. Appellant is the wife and the respondent her husband, married on 8-2-1964. The marriage was an arranged one and the appellant’s parents hailed from Kolhapur. The couple have two issues, both sons, Shailesh and Prashant by name. The later was born after 15-8-1975 from which date the couple have not resided together. That an incident involving violence to the person of the husband did take place on 15-8-1975 is not disputed. Thereafter, a number of letter were exchanged between the couple and also written by them to various persons including suppliers of food etc., to the wife and children, the school authorities and the landlord to whom belongs Block No. 1 in the building Vina Vihar at Roshan Nagar, Borivli (West), Bombay-400 092.

3. The husband’s petition seeking a divorce was initially on the ground of desertion. The version was that the wife has deserted him as from 15-8-1975 and this sufficed to entitle him to a divorce. After the wife had filed a written statement contending that it was the husband who had deserted her, the husband amended his petition, pleading cruelty on the part of his spouse as a ground for divorce. It was alleged that the husband has been subjected to almost incessant cruelty by the wife and her relation acting on her behalf and at her instigation. This cruelty consisted of taunts, constant nagging, violence and insulting behaviour. The same was intolerable and on 15-8-1975 he was driven out after having been beaten by the wife’s brother Anant.

3-A. The wife in her reply to the charge of cruelty denied that there had been any cruelty. As a matter of fact, the husband was addicted to liquor since prior to the marriage and the addiction grew more and more intense and alarming after the marriage. All effort to make him give up this habit had been of no avail. While drunk the husband had behaved in an abominable manner towards her going to the extent of beating and accusing her of all manner of sins and crimes. What had happened on 15-8-1975 was that her mother and elder brother had come to the marital home to persuade the husband to mend his ways. While the conversation was in progress, the husband levelled false allegations and abused the brothers and mother of the wife. He had made gestures suggesting that he would be assaulting them. On this, the brother had held the hand of the petitioner. The husband walk out from the marital home never to return though he had given a promise that he would come back later. It was the husband who had wilfully deserted her. There was no act of cruelty on her part, and the husband should be enjoyed to return to the matrimonial home.

4. The husband examined himself and an employee of the concern in which he was serving. Ranged against these persons were the appellant and Shailesh. The learned Judge of the matrimonial Court held that there was no desertion but that husband was entitled to a divorce because of the unforgivable and unforgiven cruelty of the wife towards him. He did not give a direction for alimony and left parties to bear their own costs. The appeal assails the decree of divorce and also the omission to award alimony to the wife. The civil application was to obtain interim alimony, costs and an injunction to restrain the husband from dispossessing her and the two sons from Block No. 1 aforementioned.

5. Having heard Counsel the points for determination are :

(1) Whether the husband proved cruelty so as to entitle him to a decree for divorce ?

(2) Was the wife entitled to alimony and continued residence in Block No. 1 ?

(3) What order ?

My findings, for reasons given below, are :-

(1) Yes.

(2) No. (3) Appeal dismissed with parties being left to bear their own costs and C.A allowed to the extent specified.

REASONS

6. This is an unfortunate litigation and reading the record one does not know whether to blame the spouses or the providence that brought and sundered them from each other. The marriage was an arranged one but without any indications that it would sour so soon. The trouble seems to have been the dissimilar cultures from which the two spouses come. The husband was a Bombay man and with tolerant and liberal ways that living here inculcates in every resident. He was hard working as soon as he could after the marriage, separated from his parents and brothers. According to him it was the constant nagging of the wife which compelled him to separate from his parents. The wife on the other hand pleads that it was lack of space in the ancestral home which made them to search for alternative accommodation. The greater probability is that it was the domineering and quarrelsome attitude of the wife which made the husband to leave his parents and brothers. The wife of course pleads that she was innocent and in proof of this points to the several letters written by her entreating her husband to return to the marital home. As I understand the evidence, she genuinely regretted the departure of the husband from the marital home and virtually went on her knees to get him back. But this was after she had done or allowed to be done all that would drive a husband away from matrimonial home. Every home has to take into its stride the usual differences, discords irritations and annoyances. Two human beings living together cannot but have moments of strife which sometimes border on the intolerable. But what took place on 15-8-1975 was not of a nature that can be forgotten and the respondent husband is no Socrates who could have forgotten it.

7. The wife speaks of the husband being a drunkard and while drunk indulging in violence, verbal as also physical. In addition to her evidence there is the deposition of Shailesh. One would be compelled to think that where the son of the couple testifies against the father it must be because what he has to say represents the truth. What should not be forgotten is that Shailesh has been living under the exclusive control of the wife since the faithful day of 15-8-1975. The wife is a domineering woman and she must have taken good care to see that the boy spoke of whatever she wanted him to speak. Shailesh at the time of his deposition in the Court was of 19 years of age. This was in August 1984. In 1975, the boy must have been about 11 years old. It is not possible to believe that he would remember all that had happened during his tender years and yet Shailesh speaks of the drunken bouts and fights occasioned by his father as if he was speaking of events which took place in the year he was deposing. That he was not telling the truth is borne out by the admission of the wife that the boys used to stay at neighbour’s house when ever quarrels between her and her husband took place. In any case, better evidence than Shailesh was available in the shape of the neighbours of Block No. 1 Vina Vihar. In fact a couple Mr. and Mrs. Ambre had gone with the wife to lure the husband into returning to the marital home. They could not have been ignorant of what went on in the home of the couple. They have not been examined and letters placed on record expose the stories about the husbands drunkenness, gambling and violent behaviour as concoctions of the wife encouraged. In this by her relations.

8. The very first letter written after 15-8-1975 is that of the husband. A true copy thereof is at Ex. A. This letter gave a vivid description of what happened on 15-8-1975. As soon as Vinayak, Anant, Madhukar and their mother came to Block No. 1, Madhukar took the waist belt of Shailesh with a view to use it for beating the writer of the letter. Thereafter Vinayak Anant and their mother abused and insulted the husband. Anant went ahead and slapped the husband twice on his face. The mother pushed the husband towards the bathroom and held him by the hair. All this had happened at the instigation and the blessings of the wife. The husband made it clear that after this incident he did not dare to return for he feared for his personal safety. All sorts of remarks had been made about him to his superiors, co-workers and his parents. The husband made it clear that he would make arrangements to see that she received money required for the maintenance of the wife and the boys. He would continue paying the rent, but she and her brother had no right to come to his office etc. etc. On 4-9-1975 the wife replied but without denying the account given in the letter of the husband written on August 30, 1975. On the contrary, she went about pretending as if all that had happened was attributable to his lapses. In the letter of 4-9-1975 she speaks of the unhappiness that had come into their lives as the result of evil stars and the evil designs of others. The letter calls upon the husband to return as early as possible. When this had no effect upon the husband the wife wrote another letter on 15-9-1975 which is at Ex. 8. In this letter she speaks of having forgiven all the lapses of the husband. Not a word of regret is expressed in this letter about the misbehaviour of her brothers and mother. On the contrary the letter warns the husband against falling a prey to the evil counsel being received by him from his so called friends. As if this was not enough, Anant addressed his brother-in-law vide Ex. D. In this letter, he admitted that he had slapped him. This according to Anant, was done with a view to mend his habits and make him refrain from drunkenness etc.etc. Not a word of regret is uttered by Anant for what he had done. On the contrary, the husband was warned against misusing the letter. When the letters written to the husband had no effect, the wife and her relatives started trying to bring pressure upon him by maligning him in the eyes of his employers and outsiders Ex. 8 proved by the husband to be in the writing of the brother of the wife – Madhukar alleges that the husband and his immediate superior S.S. Kadam were making money on the sly, that the husband was spending his time drinking and gambling, that he was bad charactered, that he was not maintaining his wife and sons and that the best way to mend matters was to separate Kadam and the respondent. The appellant sent complaints to the Hindustan Construction Co. accusing her husband of every conceivable short-coming and seeking a portion of his salary as maintenance for herself and her children. The husband was required to give explanations and one such explanation given by him is at Ex. J. dated 3-5-1976. The manner in which he was dealt with by his wife and in-laws corresponds with the account given by the husband in his testimony. Admittedly, the husband’s money orders were returned by his wife. The milkman who was supplying milk paid for by the husband was asked to supply more and more not for the benefit of those who had legitimate claim to being maintained by the husband, but also the wife’s brothers who used to come to Block No. 1 as and when the wife wanted them to be there. The school in which the boys were studying was falsely informed that the husband had absconded. The family doctor was paid for by the husband for his treating the appellant and the boys for ailments they suffered from. All alone the rent continued to be paid by the husband though he had walked out of the premises. This did not deter the wife for making all manner of false allegations against the husband about defaulting in payments of rent, fees and other charges. The trial Court has referred to all this and I need not say more on the subject. If the incident of 15-8-1975 was occasioned by the drunkenness and a false accusation of unchastity levelled against the wife, as is her allegation, the wife or husband would have referred to the same in the many letters which were exchanged between the parties. Not once was there a mention of this having led to the flare-up of 15-8-1975. According to the husband, the wife and her relations had taken him for granted. The wife was quarrelsome and domineering. This does not appear to be untrue. I deduce all this from the absence of a single word of regret for her behaviour in the letters addressed to her husband after 15-8-1975. Sincere as she was in her desire that the husband returned what she blamed was the evil friends, the evil stars of the husband and his unfortunate habits. In so far as she was concerned, she had no regrets and no doubts about her sterling character. Not one letter refers to the errors of her uncouth and indecent brothers. There is no explanation for levelling false accusations against the husband in the letters addressed to his employers. When he sent remittances to enable the wife and children to live apply she refused to accept the money on the ground that she wanted him back and was not concerned with money. Inconsistently enough, the employers were given the impression of the husband not being prepared of wanting to maintain the wife and children. This probabalises the account given by the husband of the wife’s conduct when they were consorting together. Every little thing seems to have upset the wife. If he went out she objected and his returning late however slight the delay was objected too. His speaking with the landlord was not to her liking. Visiting the landlord to pay rent was not like by her because according to her understanding, it was for the landlord to come down and collect the rent. Visitors were not welcome to the home for the appellant had the habit of barging into the drawing room and making all sorts of comments designed to embarrass and humiliate either the husband or the visitor. In fact the landlord complained of the wife’s conduct and this he did in writing. It was argued that the solitary incident of 15-8-1975 should have been forgotten by the husband and that he made a pretext of it to get rid of a tie which was becoming burdensome to him. This does not appear to be correct. On the contrary the fact that the husband bore the wife’s unbearable behaviour for 11 long years shows that he was unusually docile. Perhaps a bit of backbone exhibited in the early years would have cured the wife of her unruliness. Much is made of the husband’s fondness for non vegetarian food and the total eversion thereto of the wife and children. Now I know, that there are many in society who equate virtue with vegetarianism. But it is not possible to believe that the husband waiting the children to consume non vegetarian food was proof of any innate evil in him. Beliefs in the nutritious value of non vegetarian food, whether wrong or right, are common. The husband wanting the children to consume the non vegetarian food and liking the same is not therefore proof of his being evilminded. According to the husband the wife was not the total abstainer from fowl and flesh. In fact she use to eat chicken and pamfret. But we shall assume that the wife was totally vegetarian. If the husband tried to persuade her and also the children to reliant in their distaste for non vegetarian food this is not to be construed as if he was doing the unthinkable. This is not to say the husband must not have being fond of his glass in the evenings. I suppose he must have been drinking and on occasions getting drunk. But a men’s fondness for liquor can hardly be a reason for getting him chastised verbally and physically at the hands of his mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The wife’s account of the husband’s alleged assaults upon her are set to be contained in reports made at the police station. Had there been any truth in this version, nothing should have been more easy then getting the police to produce the so-called reports. Of course, the husband admits that the wife had given some reports to the police station for which reason he was called there. But he denies that the reports related to any assault upon the wife’s person or that he was warned by the police against repeating any act of assault. Had there been an assault with a deadly weapon like a knife, as the wife wants us to believe, the police would have registered an offence for the said offence was cognizable and would have prosecuted the husband. Admittedly, the husband was not prosecuted and this is because no cognizable offence must have been registered against him. The inference irresistible is that the wife must have magnified trifling quarrels and the police must seen through her ways. The same trifling had been tried by her through the employers of the husband. For that reason, the husband had to give a detailed though embarrassing account of the wife’s ways on 3-5-1976 vide Ex. J. The correspondence is a more reliable guide to what must have happen then the interested testimony of the wife and the undoubtedly suborned deposition of Shailesh. To recapitulate, the wife was quarrelsome and domineering, she was encourage in this by her relations and even after the unfortunate incident of 15-8-1975 showed no repentance for what had happened. To add insult to injury the letters in the early period indicated as if the husband has got what he deserved and that the wife would magnimously forgive him his lapses if only he would returned. What had happened on 15-8-1975 was unforgivable and the wife had not lifted a little finger to come to the husband’s rescue or repair his dignity. When tricks to lure him back failed, the wife resorted to blackmail. Therefore what originated was wilfulness later degenerated into cruelty intolerable and unbearable. The mere fact that the wife desperately wanted or still wants the husband to return is of no consequence. The harm has been done and the breach is irreparable. The trial Court was right in holding that cruelty entitling the husband to a divorce, had been established.

9. Mr. Kapse complains of the trial Court’s omission to grant alimony and the right of residence to the husband. The answer is that the wife by her conduct had disentitled herself to any indulgence. I must say that there is considerable truth in what the husband has to urge. But the wife at this stage of her life cannot be sent to her brothers or a poor house. Though completely undeserving she has to live and eat. The husband is agreeable to allow her a roof over her head, not necessarily in Block No. 1, and bear maintenance and this is not because she is entitled to the same, but because she is the mother of his sons and his culture dose not permit him to allow such a woman to be on the streets. I do not find the husband’s terms offensive. The appellant is a woman who has brought trouble upon herself because to her wilfulness and the evil counsel of her mother and brothers. Much as one might regret her plight there is no cure for it. It is said that the respondent wants a place for his own residence and cannot reside in Block No. 1 if the wife is allowed to use those premises. So far as the boys are concerned they have both attained majority and what ever the respondent can do, is being done by him to aid them financially and emotionally. We are not in the present proceeding concern with the maintenance of the boys. The respondent is not desiring their eviction from Block No. 1 and seeing that they have attained majority the appellant should not be allowed to plead their case for maintenance from the father. The civil applications is therefore restricted to the right of the appellant to alimony and to continued residence in Block No. 1. Having regard to her age, it will not be proper to permit the husband to insist upon her vacating the said block. At the same time the appellant cannot be allowed to continue her cantankerous behaviour which would give the landlord the ground to seek ejectment of the husband on the ground of intolerable nuisance and annoyance. Appellant will have the right to remain in Block No. 1, but only upon good behaviour and without claiming any independent right of her own in the premises. This will not entitle her to exclude from the premises the respondent or his two children and any one else he might want to accommodate their. For the duration of a life time on her remarriage the respondent shall pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 300/- per month. The payment of Rs. 300/- will be as from January 1989 and will be made on or before 15th of each calendar month. The payment of Rs. 300/- will be, not by way of alimony but as an act of charity on the part of the respondent for one who was once his wife and is now merely the mother of his two sons. It is further made clear that the continuance of the appellant in Block No. 1, is not because she has a right thereto but because of the compelling circumstances of the case and the respondent’s concession because of foregoing considerations. Subject to the payment aforementioned and respondent’s grant by way of a concession to the appellant, the appeal is dismissed with parties being left to bear their own costs and C.A. allowed in part with parties to bear their own costs.

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