The Allahabad High Court, in a case dealing with cruelty allegations against the wife, observed that the allegations that she was quarrelling with him without any reason are not sufficient to form an opinion that the appellant/husband is undergoing acute mental pain.
Brief Facts:
The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married in a temple in Ayodhya in 2015 and registered their marriage in 2016. In the same year, the husband filed for divorce, alleging that the wife forbade him from supporting his parents and brother, physically assaulted him, and filed false complaints against him, including at his workplace. He also claimed that she quarrelled with him in front of friends and hospital staff, causing mental cruelty. The wife, in response, contended that the parties had been in a relationship since 2010 and alleged that the husband had intercourse with her under the promise of marriage. She further accused him of having an illicit relationship. The Family Court observed that the couple shared a cordial relationship from 2010 to 2016 and found no clear evidence to establish when the alleged cruelty occurred. Consequently, the husband’s petition for divorce was dismissed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the respondent-wife has committed physical and mental cruelty by filing various complaints, including false and frivolous criminal complaints against the appellant. Further, the counsel submitted that though the appellant has raised the plea of cruelty at the hands of the respondent by oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Family Court has not considered the pleadings and the evidence on record in its correct perspective. According to him, the Family Court failed to consider the treatment he was subjected to by the respondent/wife. According to him, the very lodging of false allegations against the appellant/husband amounts to mental cruelty. Further, it was submitted that the learned Family Court has ignored the bad habits of the respondent/wife and also did not consider that she used to quarrel with the appellant/husband in front of his friend and hospital staff.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that while supporting the judgment and decree of the trial Court, has submitted that the learned trial Court, while dismissing the petition, has properly appreciated the evidence on record and that the appellant/husband could not make out a case to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the decision of the court in the case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh, wherein it was held that mental cruelty cannot be based on a single incident or some incidents over the years but must be based on a series of persistent incidents during the span of the relationship where the one partner finds it difficult to live with the other. Further, the court observed that no specific instances could be brought on record by the appellant despite having lived with the wife for six years. Further, the cruelty allegations were nothing but the normal wear and tear in married life.
It was further by the court that the allegations made by the husband were general and vague and were not sufficient for the Court to grant a decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and further complaints lodged by the wife and the insults hurled by her in front of family/ friends/ public were not sufficient grounds for grant of divorce. The court held that the family court had rightly refused to grant a divorce decree as the husband had failed to prove his case.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Dr. Bagish Kumar Mishra vs. Rinki Mishra
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajan Roy and Hon’ble Mr Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Case No.: First Appeal No. 55 of 2021
Advocate for the Applicant: Alok Tripathi, Anju Agarwal, Hari Om Pandey, Meena Bajpai, Nisha Srivastava, Shailesh Kumar Srivastava
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C., Rajneesh Kumar Verma, Surya Prakash Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
