Gujarat High Court
Padma Alias Pooja D/O Jhamandas ... vs Raja Alias Vasudev Hasanand Nagrani on 22 January, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1191 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PADMA ALIAS POOJA D/O JHAMANDAS GAJANMAL PANJWANI
Versus
RAJA ALIAS VASUDEV HASANAND NAGRANI
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AMRISH K PANDYA(3219) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 22/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife challenging the judgement and decree of the Family Court, Vadodara dated 27.11.2013. By the aforesaid judgement and decree, the Family Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined Court, Vadodara on an application of the respondent herein seeking a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, granted such divorce on appreciation of the evidence that the respondent has proved his case against the appellant having committed cruelty.
2. Facts in brief would indicate that the respondent was the original applicant before the Family Court, Vadodara. The respondent had filed the application under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was his case that the marriage was solemnized on 21.11.2000. It was the case of the respondent before the Family Court that the appellant would behave unbecoming of a wife with the family members and that she would at the behest of her brother, disturb the family peace where she continued with her unruly behavior and would assert her feelings and do Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined whatever she would feel appropriate. The case of the respondent also was that she had at a stage of marriage threatened the respondent that she would commit suicide as a result of which he and his parents would be sent to jail. Several attempts were made by the family to bring about a settlement, however, the behavior of the wife- appellant did not improve. It was further the case of the respondent before the Family Court that when the appellant conceived, she insisted that the child be aborted. Instances have been narrated by the respondent in an application such as these to seek divorce from the appellant- wife.
2.1 The appellant filed a written statement before the Family Court. Apart from the denial to the allegations made by the respondent in her written statement, she would assert that the Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined family at one stage threatened her and forced her to consume poison. That, she would be confined to a room where an assault was sought to be made and her wrists were tried to be cut with the blade. Both the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were examined and cross- examined before the Family Court. At Exh.74 was the deposition of the wife. The respondent- husband was also examined and questions were put to him in cross-examination as he was impaired of hearing. The evidence of the husband is recorded at Exh.84.
2.2 What has also been considered by the Trial Court while granting a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent is that albeit post filing of the Family Suit and two years thereafter, the appellant-wife filed a complaint under Section 498A against the family of the respondent Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined wherein the respondent and his parents were acquitted. Considering the filing of the complaint and the actions whether can be considered as cruelty, the Family Court came to a conclusion that it was a case where the allegations of cruelty were made out and therefore the respondent was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
3. Ms.Alka Vania learned counsel for the appellant would submit that a decree of divorce in the facts of the present case was unwarranted. She would submit that on the bare reading of the application for divorce, apart from the fact that the marriage was solemnized on 21.11.2000 and if according to the respondent, it was the wife who left the matrimonial home on 06.11.2000, though a notice was issued by the respondent on 09.11.2000, the wife had denied by a response Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined on 28.11.2000. It was only immediately thereafter within a period of less than one month that the divorce petition was filed on 03.12.2001. The statutory period of desertion therefore was not made out mandating a decree of divorce. 3.1 Ms.Vania learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that merely because there were allegations that she was assertive and would speak in a loud voice were not grounds enough to sustain the grounds of cruelty as set out by learned Family Court and the decree of divorce therefore could not have been passed. 3.2 Taking us through the judgement and the reasoning assigned by the Family Court, Ms.Vania would want us to hold that the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court on the grounds of cruelty is unsustainable and therefore Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined the same must be set aside.
3.3 In support of her submissions, Ms.Vania would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in 2003 (2) GLR 1369. She would submit that the allegations in the plaint would not per-se amount to cruelty and there was no evidence shown by the respondents to suggest that the marriage could be dissolved. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Bajrang Gangadhar Revdekar v. Pooja Bajrang Revdekar reported in AIR 2010 BOMBAY 8. Reading out the judgement, Ms.Vania would submit that akin to the facts of the case before the Bombay High Court, no case of cruelty was made out. She would rely on para 17 of the decision to support her submission that simply Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined where wife makes some grievance in a louder voice cannot be a ground of divorce due to cruelty. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Division Bench in case of Smt. Piyasha Ghosh v. Somnath Ghosh reported in AIR 2009 CALCUTTA 90.
4. Mr.Amrish Pandya learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the allegations made in the application apart from being denied in the written statement itself when allegations were made by the appellant as to the bodily injury alleged to have been made by the respondent and unfounded allegations of assault itself would make a case where the respondent needed to seek divorce. Even under Section 498A, when the respondent and his family members were acquitted, it was a ground on which the decree of divorce cannot be interfered Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined with.
4.1 Mr.Pandya in support of his submission would rely on the decision in case of Rakesh Raman v. Kavita reported in 2023 LawSuit (SC) 443. He would also rely on the decision in case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa reported in 2013 LawSuit (SC) 158. This judgement was pressed into service to support his submission that even when the grounds in the written statement are such that they are unfounded and are baseless, they can be considered as cruelty. The judgement in case of Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani reported in 2019 (0) AIJEL-SC 65431 was pressed into service for the allegations vis-a-vis under Section 498A.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined learned counsel for the respective parties. Before we consider the facts of the case, we unfortunately cannot shut our eyes to the fact that having entered into marriage in the year 2000, the parties to this appeal have now been residing separately for over a period of 23 years since the year 2001. Perusal of the memo and application filed under Section 13 and the evidence of the respondent who deposed before the Family Court at Exh.61 would indicate that he has more or less confirmed the allegations made in the application seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. What needs to be noted even otherwise though the notice issued by him on 09.11.2001 is not exhibited is that the learned counsel for the appellant has read the contents of the notice which indicate that it is the perception of the respondent so supported by his oral evidence that the wife apart from being assertive Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined would expect the respondent to fall in line with what she expected in life. It was also asserted and orally proved that she would indulge in misbehaving with her in-laws. Though post the filing of the suit, it has come on record that during the pendency of the suit and prior to the decision rendered by the Family Court, the appellant did file complaints against the respondent's family under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code where the criminal Court acquitted the respondent and his parents. The Family Court further considering the reinstatement and the deposition of the appellant found that in fact she had gone out of her way in making allegations of matrimonial house being unsafe for her inasmuch as she faced physical abuse when at one stage, a threat was made by her in-laws to split her wrists and she was forced to consume poison. Confronted by this statement Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined and allegations made in the written statement, we would ponder whether such allegations made on behalf of wife would entitle a husband to seek decree of divorce. When we consider the decision of the supreme Court in case of K. Srinivas Rao (supra), para 12 of the judgement indicates a case where the Supreme Court based on the allegations made by the counterpart in the written statement suggested that such pleadings and questions would cause immense mental pain and anguish to the husband.
6. Apart from this circumstance that would weigh against the appellant in assailing the judgement of the Family Court, as held by the Supreme Court in case of Rakesh Raman (supra), when it has been found in the applications under Section 498A that the allegations against the in-laws of the husband have been found unwarranted and Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined there has been an acquittal, such an aspect would certainly be a circumstance that would weigh in favour of a party-the husband in this case seeking a decree of divorce when the allegations have been found to be unwarranted.
7. Time and again this Court has come across decisions of the Family Court where the scope of the term 'cruelty' has been a matter which has been decided by various decisions of the Supreme Court. In all the decisions cited by the parties before us, i.e. in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Court while relying on the decision of cruelty in a matrimonial relationship, has extensively quoted from Halsbury Dictionary.
8. What is evident from the above reading is that while considering the cases of cruelty, we have Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined to see the entire matrimonial relationship. Cruelty could consist not necessarily of violent acts but injuries to mental health which contains accusations and taunts.
9. There is another aspect to this appeal from what has been considered by the Trial Court and as we note now that they have been staying away for a period of 23 years. The Supreme Court in case of Savitri Pandey (supra) considered the decision in case of Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra reported in 1985 (3) SCC 62, which is a case where a complete reform of a law on marriage has been suggested and introduced the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Here is a case where allegations and counter allegations have been made by the respective parties and which the family Court in our opinion has considered based on the evidence on record, Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1191/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025 undefined we see no reason to distort the findings of the family Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
10. In view of the fact that alimony which has been deposited by the respondent before the Family Court at Vadodara is still lying with the Family Court, the appellant shall be permitted to withdraw the same.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) ANKIT SHAH Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:23:18 IST 2025