KERELA HIGH COURT
JUSTICE A.M. Shaffique, J. & Anu Sivaraman
Ajithakumari R. Vs. A.S. Subhagan On 3 July 2017
Law Point:
Respondent-wife alleged to be making scandalous allegations against petitioner husband among neighbours — Allegations against him will amount to his reputation being tarnished
JUDGEMENT
This appeal is filed by the respondent in OP (HMA) No. 184/2006 by which the Family Court by judgment dated 16.12.2009 granted a decree for divorce. The parties are referred to as shown in the original petition.
2. The short facts involved in the case would show that the petitioner and respondent got married on 11.9.1990. Allegation raised by the petitioner/husband was that from the very beginning of the marriage, she was picking up quarrels with her in-laws and false complaints were being raised in order to have a separate residence. Ultimately, he constructed a house in 7 cents of land and resided away from the parental house. He further alleges that in the separate residence also, she treated him with cruelty as she used filthy words against him in the presence of strangers. Further she was in the habit of wandering in the neighbouring house and spreading false allegations against the petitioner to his friends, relatives etc. which had tarnished his reputation. It is further contended that on 8.4.2003 at 7 p.m, her father, brothers and some rowdies manhandled him which was silently observed by the respondent without causing any interference. Since the said incident, there was no cohabitation between the spouses and alleging cruelty and permanent desertion, divorce is sought.
3. In the objection filed by the respondent/wife she denied all the allegations. According to her, she never quarrelled with him and did not insist for any separate residence whereas he was in the habit of drinking and once he was under the influence of alcohol, he started misbehaving with her and the children. He used to manhandle her by demanding money and gold. He used to pick up quarrels time and often. She also denied having spread any sort of gossip and other information to the neighbours, friends or relatives which has caused any lack of reputation. In regard to incident on 9.4.2003, she contended that the petitioner had come fully drunk and assaulted her severely and thereafter there was no cohabitation between the couple. She filed MC No. 16/2008 for maintenance, but so far no amount had been paid.
4. The above case was considered along with original petition filed by the husband seeking custody of the minor children. Common evidence was taken in the case. The husband was examined as PW1 and he relied upon the evidence of PW2 and PW3. Wife was examined as DW1. Petitioner placed reliance upon Exts.A1 to A10(a) documents and respondent placed reliance upon Exts.B1 to B4. The Family Court on an appreciation of the evidence found that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 clearly indicate that the wife was causing mental harassment to the petitioner and taking into account the said evidence it was found that a case of mental cruelty as well as desertion had been established and accordingly a decree had been granted
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant while impugning the aforesaid judgment submits that the Court below had misread the evidence in the case and therefore a reappreciation of the evidence is required, in which event it could be found that the judgment of the Family Court was erroneous. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Beena S.S. v. Sundaresan and Others, 2016 (1) KLT 546. In this case, the Division Bench held that in order to establish mental cruelty, there should be sufficient pleading and evidence which is substantial and material in nature to the extent of creating a permanent mental distress and everlasting disturbance in the mind of the person alleging cruelty. It is also held that flimsy, shallow and baseless allegations shall not constitute cruelty.
(ii) Mahesh Chander Sharma v. Renu Sharma, 2016 KHC 3889. This judgment is rendered by a learned Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court wherein it is held that if the husband has condoned the acts of the respondent wife, the same has to be borne in mind while granting or refusing the relief of divorce. In this case, the Court had given a narration of what would amount to cruelty and all the related judgments had been cited.
(iii) Major Sachin Vasdev v. Sudha, 2016 KHC 2192. This is a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court where a Division Bench held that unless there are serious allegations of cruelty making it impossible for husband to live with the wife, no decree could be granted. Very small incidents as to misbehaviour by wife does not amount to cruelty warranting grant of divorce.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the stand taken by the Family Court. It is contended that sufficient evidence was available in the case to prove the constant harassment meted out by the wife against the petitioner and therefore, the Family Court was justified in granting divorce on both desertion as well as cruelty.
7. The main case set up by the petitioner is that she was constantly picking up quarrels without any reason and on account of her persistent stand, he had to purchase 7 cents of property and construct a building by availing loan. He further alleges that she was in the habit of raising false and baseless allegations against him in front of friends, relatives and neighbours in order to ridicule and tarnish his reputation. She enjoyed pleasure of causing cruelty to the petitioner. It is further contended that she was in the habit of telling lies in front of the children and very frequently she used to blame and curse the petitioner. When he goes for employment, she used to go to the neighbouring houses and spreads baseless scandals about the petitioner. The neighbours used to ask him about such nasty accusations and allegations which has caused him severe mental agony and torture. Though he advised her not to wander in the neighbouring houses, she continued the same on account of which he had to suffer severe mental agony. She never lived as a loyal wife. She also uses filthy language against the petitioner in front of their children. He narrates an incident on 8.4.2003. He was manhandled by the father and brothers of the respondent along with certain rowdy elements and they used filthy language against him. Their attempt was to kill him and grab his wealth and employment benefits after his death. Respondent did not intervene in the said incident and was only enjoying the assault on him. After the said day, respondent took away the children and voluntarily left the house. After leaving the matrimonial home, respondent did not return to his house and therefore he contended that she deserted him from 8.4.2003 onwards.
8. The original petition is filed on 2.3.2006 after two years from the date she left his house. In the objection filed, she denied the above allegations whereas she has made allegations that he was a drunkard and used to behave in a cruel manner against her. According to her, the petitioner was demanding her to ask for a share from her family members and ultimately on 14.7.1997, an extent of 34 cents belonging to her mother was assigned in her name. Still he was not happy about the same. Still further, when he came to know that her family members were intending to sell 4 cents of land near the 34 cents assigned in her name, he wanted the said land also and demanding the same, she was being manhandled. On such demand being made, her parents had assigned the said land in the name of the respondent. Thereafter he made a demand that all the land should be assigned in his name. On 9.4.2003 by about 9.00 p.m at night, after excessively drinking alcohol, he assaulted her demanding assignment of land in his name and he asked her to leave the house with the children and to come back only after executing the assignment deed in his name. According to her, after the said incident, he had not maintained her and their children and accordingly she was forced to file M.C. No. 16/2008 before the Family Court. She therefore sought for dismissal of the original petition.
9. Petitioner in his evidence as PW1 filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination wherein he reiterated the allegations made. He produced Exts.A1 to A4 to show that he had taken loan for construction of the building and that Exts.A5 and A6 were produced to show the ownership of the building. PW2 is a neighbour of the petitioner. According to him, he could see and hear the incidents happening at the petitioner’s house. He deposed that the petitioner is a gentleman and once he goes for work, his wife used to come to his residence as well as the neighbouring residences and used to make allegations against the petitioner. They used to tell her not to make such allegations but she continued the same on account of which according to him the petitioner was suffering mental agony. Further they used to continuously quarrel at their residence. Even if the petitioner does not react, she does not stop quarrelling. He also narrates the incident in April 2003 by which the petitioner was manhandled by the father and relatives of the respondent. PW3 is another neighbour who also speaks about the very same facts and incident that occurred in April, 2003. Though these witnesses were effectively cross-examined, nothing has been brought to discredit their version. DW1 is the respondent. She had given evidence in accordance with the allegations made by her.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there is no specific allegation regarding cruelty. Only general allegations had been made. Further, a case of desertion is not made out insofar as petitioner had thrown out the respondent and children from the family. In cross-examination, RW1 admits the fact that the petitioner is very honest in his profession and used to do his work properly and has got very good reputation in his place of employment. Further, he would like to live in a disciplined manner. When asked whether he used to excessively spend money, her answer was that he used to spend money for drinking purpose. She further admits that the property which she obtained as a gift from her family is still in her name. She also denied the suggestion that on 8.4.2003 the petitioner was manhandled by her father and others. In fact, the respondent did not specifically deny the incident in the objection whereas she contends that on 9.4.2003, she was brutally manhandled. Though the respondent had denied the allegations, none had been examined on her behalf to prove any of the contentions raised by her. Her family members were not examined to disprove the allegations made by the petitioner.
11. The Family Court found that from the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, the contention of the petitioner that she was making scandalous allegations against him among the neighbours is found to be correct. Even according to her, he is a very honest person in his job and used to do his work promptly and he is leading a disciplined life which by itself would indicate that he is a man of reputation. Faced with such situations, when allegations are raised against him, definitely it will amount to his reputation being tarnished. With regard to the incident on 8.4.2003, the neighbours, PW2 and PW3 have spoken about the said incident, wherein petitioner was physically assaulted. Further, there is material to indicate that she had gone away with the children from the matrimonial home and did not come back. All these factual aspects clearly indicate a case of cruelty as well as desertion. Though several judgments had been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the proposition laid down are undoubted, each case has to be considered on its own facts. In this case, evidence of PWs 1 to 3 clearly indicate the manner in which the respondent behaved to the petitioner and the loss of reputation he suffered, which would amount to mental cruelty. Further, she had left the matrimonial home on 8.4.2003 and thereafter she did not take any steps for resuming cohabitation. All these facts clearly indicate that the case set up by the petitioner is believable. Respondent had not adduced any independent evidence to support her version. Her relatives or parents were not examined in support of her contentions and not even a single neighbour had been examined to prove her version. Under such circumstances, we do not think that a different view can possibly be taken in the matter.
Since no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court, this appeal is dismissed.
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