The Chhatisgarh High Court has recently uphled the Divorce Decree granted in favour of a husband while observing that wife's act of storming his workplace and abusing him in foul language amounts to cruelty.
A Division Bench comprising of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal was adjudicating upon an appeal against a Family Court order, wherein it held:
"In such a situation when a wife goes to the office premises of the husband, abuses him and accuses him of certain relation, naturally it would result into diminishing the image of the husband before the colleagues and the office stature will certainly go down. Except such oral bald allegation by the wife, the allegation could not be established. Even it is stated that the wife used to abuse the in-laws and stopped the husband to meet his parents, which would also amount to cruelty.'
The appellant-wife has a child with the respiondent-husband. With the passage of time, their relationship soured as issues arised over her spending habits. It was the husband's allegation that she spent whenever he wanted to visit his parents, the wife used to abuse him resulting into stoppage of meeting of the husband with his parents. It was further alleged that without the consent and permission of the husband she went to a place called Belpahad for her business at Mahanadi coalfield for the business of coal shifting and when the husband tried to intervene, he was abused and insulted.
The allegation went further till that she used to forcefully acquire the salary of the husband and when asked about expenses used to reciprocate abusively. It was further alleged that at one occasion the wife had surreptitiously stolen away the valuable papers which were kept in the car and was arrested for the same when her crime was proved.
The wife in turn in reply contended that she had never misbehaved with the husband and has not committed any cruelty but it was at the behest of the husband after an affair, they entered into a wedlock. She further stated that the husband knowing fully well that she is a widow, the marriage was performed. She further stated that because of the wish and will of the husband, she underwent a surgery to conceive the child and thereafter child was born. It was further stated that after birth of the child, the behaviour of the husband became strange and for the some reason or the other he wanted to separate.
Her Counsel submitted that the Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the wife was treated with cruelty by the husband and the evidence as adduced by the husband would not prove that the husband was treated with cruelty by the wife. It was further submitted that the wife wanted to live with the husband along with child but on the some reason or the other, the husband do not want to stay with the wife. He further averred that the wife was financially independent and the allegation of the husband that the wife was interested on the money of the husband is completely falsehood. Referring to the statement of the wife and the cross-examination of the husband, he submitted that the reading of the two statements do not bring home factor of cruelty and only for the reason that one real sister has deposed against the wife, the family Court fell into error to hold the factum of cruelty. He argued that the statement of the wife would show that the cruelty was meted out by the husband to her and the husband tried to create false evidence to get the divorce. Consequently, the finding of the Court below requires interference.
Contrary, the Counsel for respondent argued that not only the character assassination of the husband was made with allegation of extra marital affair but the wife went to the extent of going to the office of the husband to create a scene and also sent letters to the Chief Minister for his transfer. Submission on her slain actions and violent behaviour were also made.
Besides, it was argued that the husband was being treated with cruelty both physically and mentally as physical assault was also made at many point of time, therefore, the cumulative reading of the evidence produced would show that the finding arrived at by the learned family Court is well merited.
The Court mentioned Supreme Court Ruling in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 Latest Caselaw 273 SC whereby it defined mental cruelty. As far as the issue of extra-marital affair was concerned, it referred to Narendra Vs. K. Meena, 2016 Latest Caselaw 733 SC wherein it was held that when the assassination of character is made by either of the parties it would constitute a mental cruelty for which a claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be sustainable.
The after appreciating all the evidences and material on record opined that the Family Court Judgement needn't be interfered with.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
