This Case refers to an appeal made by the husband (appellant) against a court decision issued on May 29, 2009.
In the original court case, the wife (respondent) filed for divorce claiming her husband’s behavior was cruel (as defined in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955).
However, the court dismissed her petition. Now, the husband is appealing this decision, hoping to overturn the original ruling and potentially obtain a divorce based on different grounds.
- The present Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA, 1955”) has been filed on behalf of
the appellant/husband against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.05.2009
whereby the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband on the ground
of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955, has been dismissed. - Briefly stated that parties got married according to Hindu customs and
rites on 14.10.1999 and one son was born from their wedlock on 28.12.2000. - The appellant/husband had asserted in his Divorce Petition that after
the marriage, he and his family member gave due regard, respect, love and
affection to the respondent/wife despite which she did not reciprocate the
same sentiments towards him and his family members. Immediately after the
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 2 of 15
marriage on 16.10.1999, the respondent started inquiring about the assets
and business of the family of the appellant which caused a mental alarm in
his mind. He assured her that he would take care of all the basic needs, but
she remained adamant. It is further asserted that the respondent had asked
for a partition and share in the business of the father of the appellant on
01.03.2000 and on his refusal she had threatened to implicate him and his
family members in false cases. - It was further alleged that the respondent failed to discharge the
regular household work, so much so, that many a times he had to go to his
office without food. The respondent even refused to take care of him when
he was sick and told him that she did not care whether he lived or died.
She had a habit of sleeping for long hours. - The appellant also claimed that there was a constant parental
interference of the respondent/wife and she would tell everything that
transpired in the matrimonial home to her parents, who in turn would
confront him with the incidents. When the appellant asked the respondent to
reduce the interference of her parents in their matrimonial life, she again
misbehaved and extended threats to the appellant. She would frequently go
to her parental home without informing while he went to his office. On her
asking, her parents used to misbehave with the parents of the appellant. - The appellant had further claimed that on 21.06.2000 since he had a
heavy schedule in his office, he left the respondent at her parental home. In
the evening the respondent called him to pick her up from her parental
house, but when he expressed his inability to take her back after returning
from the office at 8 P.M., the father and maternal uncle of respondent came
to their matrimonial home and misbehaved with the parents.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 3 of 15 - The appellant asserted that the respondent demanded a separate
accommodation from the parents and when he refused, she misbehaved with
him. On 29.08.2001, the respondent called the Police after he had left for
his office and the parents and maternal uncle of the respondent in collusion
with the Police arranged for the arrest of him and his parents. The
respondent also made a false complaint against them. He was compelled by
the Police to sign some blank papers and to take the respondent to a separate
accommodation. They immediately shifted with the grandparents of the
appellant at Kirti Nagar, Delhi from 30.08.2001. Thereafter, on 19.09.2001
they shifted to a rented accommodation in Janakpuri. On 05.10.2001 the
respondent along with her parents and uncle came to his office and started
quarrelling with him as to why he was not residing in the parental home. - It was further alleged that on 10.11.2001 when the parents of the
appellant returned back home from Haridwar and tried to open the lock of
their house, they found that the lock had been changed. They broke open
the lock and on going inside, they found that their house had been
completely ransacked and their valuable articles along with the jewellery of
the mother, had been taken away. After sometime, respondent along with
her father came to their house and admitted that they had visited the house
behind them and broken all the locks. They threatened to lodge a false
complaint against the appellant and his family members and to face the
consequences. On 05.11.2001, the SHO again pressurized the appellant to
stay at Kirti Nagar along with the respondent. He refused on account of the
cruel acts of the respondent and his family members. On this, he was
threatened by the SHO that he shall be put behind bars.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 4 of 15 - On 18.12.2001 the respondent came to the office of the appellant to
pressurize him to live with her in Kirti Nagar and when he refused, she
called some unsocial elements to damage his motorcycle and his office.
They also went to the parental home of the appellant and threw stones and
bricks on the doors and window panes and the cousin of the appellant called
the Police. On 25.12.2001 the respondent and her parents again started
threatening the appellant for which he made a complaint to the Police. - It is also asserted that after the birth of the son on 28.12.2000 the
respondent misbehaved with his parents, when they went to the hospital to
see the child. She even neglected to take care of the child to feed him
properly or to change his clothes. All this was left for the appellant to take
care. The appellant thus, sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. - The respondent in the Written Statement denied all the allegations
made in the petition. - The issues on the pleadings were framed as under:
(i) Whether the Respondent has treated the
petitioner with cruelty? OPP
(ii) Relief.” - The appellant examined himself as PW1 while the respondent
appeared in support of her case as RW1. - The learned Additional District Judge on appreciation of the
evidence, concluded that though the appellant had deposed about all the
incidents and cruelties as were asserted in his petition, but none of those
incidents were suggested to the respondent in the cross-examination. Even
though the respondent had not made a single averment against the appellant
and had simply denied the allegations made by the appellant, it was for the
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 5 of 15
appellant to prove the acts of cruelty which he has failed to prove; therefore,
the divorce petition was dismissed. - Aggrieved by the dismissal of the divorce petition, the present appeal
has been preferred. - Submissions heard and record perused.
- The parties admittedly got married on 14.10.1999 and one son was
born from the wedlock on 28.12.2000. The parties separated on 19.09.2001
i.e. within two years of their marriage. The cruelty as alleged by both the
parties thus, spans over a period of about two years. - At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that in the matrimonial cases
essentially the parties are the witness to the events that happen in their life.
In most of the cases it is their sole testimony of one party against that of the
other and the difficult task of separating the truth like chaff from the grain
falls upon the Courts. Essentially, it is the totality of the circumstances and
the probabilities that need to be weighed on the anvil of probabilities, in
arriving at a conclusion of truthfulness of the events as deposed by the
parties. - In the present case as well, it is only the word of the appellant against
the respondent about the alleged incidents. The first set of allegations made
by the appellant/husband against the respondent/wife are that she refused to
do the household work and failed to give any respect, regard, love and
affection to the appellant. The respondent was in a habit of sleeping for long
hours and would not even serve him with breakfast and many a times he had
to go to his office without breakfast or his packed lunch. He narrated the
specific incident of 28.08.2001, the appellant had requested the respondent
to help his mother with washing of clothes since she was not well, but the
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 6 of 15
respondent instead of coming forth, started screaming and yelling at him in
abusive language. The appellant deposed that on 25.09.2000 the appellant
had fallen sick and requested the respondent for a glass of water to which
she retorted that he would not die, if no water was served. The appellant has
deposed that on 02.10.2000 the parents of the respondent came to their
house and misbehaved. On 20.11.2000 the request to the respondent to
prepare breakfast for him did it not meet her approval. - These incidents as narrated by the appellant may seem innocuous and
subjective but the impact of such acts is to be assessed not from the standard
of whether a reasonable person with normal sensibility would find the
conduct to be cruel, but whether the conduct would be cruel to the aggrieved
spouse in question as held in the case of Dastane v Dastane AIR 1975 SC - It cannot be overlooked that the spouses who enter into a matrimonial
relationship, do so with some expectation of mutual care, affection and
camaraderie. The small incidents as narrated by the appellant in his
testimony, may appear to be initial hiccups and adjustment issues but
definitely create a roadblock in development of mutual trust and confidence
on which the marriage ultimately survives. From the testimony of the
appellant it is evident that much to his chagrin, he felt neglected and
disrespected by the respondent. - The appellant has further deposed that the respondent used to
frequently visit her parental home while he went to his office without giving
any prior intimation to him. She was under immense parental influence who
interfered in their matrimonial life. The father of the respondent wanted the
appellant’s parents to invest their money in the chit fund/committee business
of the parents of the respondent. The father of the appellant, however, had
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 7 of 15
expressed his reluctance on account of not having enough money, which
was not liked by the parents of the respondent. The respondent in her
testimony had essentially been evasive and there was no counter by her. - The appellant had further deposed that under her parental influence,
on 01.03.2000, the respondent had asked the appellant to seek partition and
his share in the business and immovable properties of his father. When he
refused to do so, she threatened to implicate him in false cases and also to
ruin life and liberty of the appellant and his family members. When he
approached the parents of the respondent, they supported her conduct.
Disturbed by the constant parental interference of the respondent in his
matrimonial, the appellant requested the respondent on 10.03.2002 to
request her parents to reduce their interference in their life but the
respondent reacted by misbehaving. - The appellant further deposed that on 02.05.2000 maternal aunt of the
respondent came to their house and started asking the appellant about the
arrangements made by him for the social security of the child. He was also
warned by the father of the respondent on 15.05.2000 that in case any
complaint was received from the respondent, the entire family would face
dire consequences. - The respondent aside from simplicitor denying all the allegations
made in the petition did not give any counter explanation. Even her
testimony was essentially silent and gave no explanation to the incidents
deposed by the appellant. With such stoic silence of the respondent in
neither giving any explanations or putting counter explanations, the only
inference that can be drawn is that the testimony of the appellant is truthful.
It is, therefore, established that there was a parental interference in the
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 8 of 15
matrimonial life of the parties which obviously created immense mental
stress and harassment for the appellant and also hampered their relationship
to blossom. - The appellant has further deposed that the respondent demanded a
separate residence for themselves from the parents of the appellant on
25.07.2000 and his refusal to separate was responded by the respondent by
misbehaviour. The appellant further deposed that as he left for his office on
29.08.2001 the respondent called the Police in collusion with her parents and
maternal uncle and even arranged for the arrest of the appellant and his
parents and even gave a false Report. The Police at the behest of the
respondent, took signatures of the appellant on blank papers and compelled
him to take a separate residence from his parents. Consequently, on
30.08.2001 the appellant and respondent shifted to the house of the grand
parents of the appellant in Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. About twenty days
hence, on 19.09.2001 he took rented accommodation and shifted with his
bag and baggage. However, the respondent refused to shift to the rented
accommodation and from the house of grandparents went to her parental
home. Since then the respondent is residing with her parents. - The respondent has admitted in her cross-examination dated
26.11.2008 that, she has been living separately from her husband since past
seven years and she remained with her parents for approximately five and a
half years. Thereafter, she came sometime either in the year 2006 or 2007, to
her matrimonial home. She has further deposed the time was about 12:00
noon, and her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law, were present
in the house. On her arrival, all three left the house. She deposed that her
parents had not accompanied her and also denied that there were four-five
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 9 of 15
ladies social workers, who had entered into the house, with her. She stated
that she could not say whether the articles were lying in the house or not
because all the rooms were locked except one room and the kitchen. She
admitted that since then, she is living in the matrimonial home and
thereafter, her in-laws have not visited the matrimonial home. It all leads to
the inevitable conclusion that after about seven years of separation, the
respondent returned to the matrimonial home not as an endeavour to restore
and mend the matrimonial relationship with appellant but essentially to
assert her right of residence. While her assertion of legal rights cannot be
faulted or held against her, but it clearly strengthens the depositions of the
appellant that she was under her parental influence and was unable to wean
away from her parents and forge relationship with the appellant. Clearly,
there was rejection of matrimony and the obligations that it brings with it.
Such conduct of the respondent can only be termed as mental cruelty
towards the appellant. - The appellant has further deposed that at the time of delivery of the
new born on 28.12.2000 the parents of the respondent misbehaved with him.
The mother of the respondent visited on 26.01.2001 and abused the
appellant. He further deposed that the respondent neglected the child and
failed to take care of his food and other requirements. When the appellant
intervened, she became angry and threw the glass of water on him and also
beat the child mercilessly. On 25.05.2001 the respondent in anger threw the
child on the floor. On 10.07.2001 while the child was weeping, the
respondent slapped him. The appellant then took over the task of taking
care of the milk and other requirements of the child on himself.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 10 of 15 - It is further significant to refer to the testimony of the appellant, who
had deposed that on 29.08.2001, the respondent had come with the police,
after he had left for his office, in collusion with her parents and maternal
Uncle and local police, she had arranged for the arrest of the parents and of
the petitioner. This fact is admitted by the respondent in her cross-
examination that she had lodged a complaint on 29.08.2001, and that on her
complaint, her in-laws were arrested on the same day. Moreover, she
admitted that she had visited the Police Station but stated that she did not
wish to say anything about the incident dated 29.08.2001 and was not even
willing to comment whether an FIR was got registered. She further deposed
that her in-laws were released on the same date. It was for the respondent to
explain the circumstances which prompted her to call the police leading to
the arrest of his parents. By choosing to remain silent, there can only be an
adverse presumption of there being no basis for making the police complaint
and getting the parents of the respondent arrested. What more can be the
mental trauma for the appellant than to see his parents being subjected to the
extreme ignominy of arrest for no explicable reason. - The appellant has explained the circumstances that led to registration
of FIR No. 672/2001 under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, on 18.12.2001 against the appellant and his family members, on the
allegations of beating up of the respondent and his family members outside
the CAW Cell. The appellant has deposed that the correct sequence of
events was that on 18.12.2001, when he reached his office at 12:15 p.m, he
found the respondent/wife present, who started pressurising him to live in
her company at Kirti Nagar but the appellant expressed his reluctance
because of the cruel callous conduct and humiliation and degradation caused
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 11 of 15
by the respondent/wife making it impossible for him to live in her company.
On hearing this, the respondent/wife became angry and started shouting and
screaming at him and even used abusive and filthy language against him and
his family members. She also started banging the doors and windows of the
office and created a scene. She also has given a threat to the appellant to
show her Jalwa in 10 minutes. Thereafter, she left the office and came
again. Within 10 minutes or so of her arrival, three cars full of gundas and
anti-social elements, her parents, her brother, Mr. Gaurav Anand, Maternal
Uncle Mr. Ashok, Maternal aunt Smt. Ramesh Bharara and Mr. Chander
Bharara and cousins Mr. Rajan Bharara, Mr. Jaidev Bharara and Mr. Vikas
Bharara, came to the office of the appellant and started thrashing the doors
and the window panes. These persons also badly thrashed the motor-cycle of
the appellant and damaged it completely. - All these people then came to the parental home of the
appellant/husband and started throwing stones and bricks on the doors and
window panes and caused damaged to them. On seeing this, the cousin
brother Mr. Vishal Talwar of the appellant, called the Police at No. 100. Mr.
Rajan Bharara somehow managed to open the gate of the house and they all
came inside and caught hold of Mr. Vishal Talwar, the cousin brother of the
appellant and tried to throw him from the balcony of the floor. But because
of the warning given by the neighbours, they were not able to achieve their
illegal designs. Mr. Vishal Talwar was beaten by these persons and damage
was caused to the doors and windows of the first floor premises at E-45,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The house was ransacked and the articles were
damaged. The photographs of the damaged motor-cycle are exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/10 to PW-1/12 and of the damage to the house are exhibited as Ex-
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 12 of 15
PW-1/13 to Ex.PW-1/21. The medical record of Mr. Vishal Talwar is
exhibited as Ex.PW-1/22 and Ex.PW-1/23. - No action was taken by the police against the respondent and her
family members but the FIR No. 672/2001 was registered against them. A
protest letter was given by the father of the appellant against the registration
of FIR after two days but no action was taken by the police. Thereafter, a
complaint case under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read
with Sections 307, 325, 379, 383, 425, 426, 441, 447, 503 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, was filed against the respondent/wife and six other
accused persons in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
However, the said complaint was withdrawn since the respondent/wife also
withdrew her case. - It is, therefore, not in dispute that an incident had happened on
18.12.2001, about which the FIR was registered against the appellant and his
family members. He had made a cross-complaint though he withdrew as the
respondent also withdrew the FIR. Admittedly, the respondent in her cross-
examination, when questioned about the incident, refused to make any
comment about the incident or the registration of FIR. Therefore, it can be
safely concluded that, an unsavoury incident happened on 18.12.2001,
wherein the appellant suffered and had to face not only the criminal trial in
the FIR that was registered but also had been driven to file the criminal
complaint. - In addition to this, it is admitted by the respondent that they had made
a complaint in National Commission For Women, of which the Notice
Ex.PW-1/35 was issued to the appellant to appear on 31.12.2002. An
enquiry was conducted in the National Commission for Women, though the
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 13 of 15
complaint was dismissed. Furthermore, it is not denied by the
respondent/wife that, she had also filed a complaint before the CAW Cell,
Kirti Nagar in May, 2003, in which the appellant had sought anticipatory
bail wherein the learned ASJ directed that two days notice be given to him
before his arrest and the copy of the Order dated 14.05.2003 is exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/36. - The respondent in her cross-examination had tried to give an
explanation that these complaints were made only with an intent for re-
conciliation. However, this explanation is not tenable for the simple reason
that it resulted in tremendous harassment of the appellant and his family
members. Making such complaints before the National Commission for
Women, CAW Cell and even the police solely with the intent of
conciliation, cannot be held to be justifiable. - Every aggrieved person has the absolute right to initiate appropriate
legal action and has every right to approach the state machinery. However, it
was for her to establish that she was subjected to cruelty or dowry
harassment by placing forth cogent evidence in support of her allegations.
Though filing of a criminal complaint per-se cannot amount to cruelty,
however, such grave and uncorroborated allegations of cruelty
unsubstantiated during the divorce proceedings, are all acts of cruelty
towards the appellant in addition to be a proof of intention of the respondent
to reject the matrimonial relationship. - In the case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita X (2014) SLT 126, the
Supreme Court held that filing of the false complaint against the husband
and his family members constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of Section
13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955. The Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kumar
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 14 of 15
Vs. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476 has categorically held that “reckless, false
and defamatory allegations against the husband and family members would
have an effect of lowering their reputation in the eyes of the society and it
amounts to cruelty.
” Similar observations were made by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Rita Vs. Jai Solanki (2017) SCC OnLine
Del 9078 and Nishi Vs. Jagdish Ram 233 (2016) DLT 50. - From the evidence of the parties, it is evident that there was an
unwarranted interference of the parents and the family members of the
respondent in the matrimonial life of the appellant, as has been asserted by
him. Such parental interference reached an extent of causing immense
harassment to the appellant, who was even made to face multiple complaints
before the different agencies. The parties are residing separately since 2001
i.e. for about 13 years, during which the appellant has been deprived of his
conjugal relationship for no fault of his. It needs no reiteration that the
bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal
relationships. For a spouse to be deprived of his wife’s company proves that
the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of conjugal relationships
is an act of extreme cruelty. Such long separation with no effort by the wife
to resume matrimonial relationship, is an act of cruelty as is held in the case
of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511. - We thus, conclude that the evidence on record proved that there is no
chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation
peppered which false allegations, Police reports and criminal trial can only
be termed as mental cruelty. The marital discord between the parties has
pinnacled to complete loss of faith, trust, understanding, love and affection
between the parties. This dead relationship has become infested with
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 229/2023 Page 15 of 15
acrimony, irreconcilable differences and protracted litigations; any
insistence to continue this relationship would only be perpetuating further
cruelty upon both the parties. - We, therefore, conclude that the appellant has been able to
successfully prove that he was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and is
entitled to divorce. We, thus, set-aside the impugned judgment dated
29.05.2009 and grant the divorce under Section 13 (i) (ia) of the HMA,
1955. - The appeal is accordingly allowed.
- Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2024
JN/VA/RS/