June 05, 2019:

The Uttrakhand High Court dissolved marriage of petitioner after it found Family Court didn't apply due diligence in ascertaining 'mental cruelty' and dismissed his appeal under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act.

 

The petitioner has a dependent mother and six married sister. The petitioner's wife has claimed to have demanded separated residence from his mother far away in Delhi from his homeland in Haridwar.

As per petitioner, she had argued on the same numerous time creating quarrels and bad atmosphere at his house. She also had tortured him and threatened him with warnings to kill herself  and the son born out of the wedding lock. She also took the pain top his old-age mother to get her demands accepted. She left the house of the petitioner after which he filed appeal under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

During hearing in Family Court, she agreed to stay together with her husband (petitioner) which they did in a house rented by petitioner. But nothing changed, the demand of the respondent remained same so as her toxic behavior. She had said to put knife on her son's throat and warned to kill him in front of the petitioner if her demands weren't accepted. Not only this but she has filed criminal cases against her husband and his relatives after he applied for divorce which High Court eventually found to be false. A compromise did take place between parties where the petitioner was ready to pay to his wife ₹10 lakh as one time settlement and the custody of the child but it could not be materialized.

The High Court observed that the husband applied for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The term ‘cruelty’ is not defined in the Act. Cruelty may be mental or physical. The expression cruelty has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), has laid down the instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”.

The High Court said, " The word “cruelty” appears to have been used in the Section in context of human behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial obligations or duties. Cruelty can be termed as behaviour or conduct of one spouse which adversely affects the other. Thus broadly speaking ‘cruelty’ as a ground for the purpose of divorce under Section 13(1(i- a) can also be taken as a behaviour of one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it is not safe to continue matrimonial relationship. Cruelty can be physical or mental or even intentional or unintentional. The mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is a matter of inference to be drawn from acts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other can be appreciated on the assessment of facts and circumstances in which the two of them have been living. The inference has to be drawn from overall facts and circumstances considered cumulatively."

It added, "Mental cruelty and its effect cannot be stated  with arithmetical accuracy. It varies from individual to individual, from society to society and also depends on the status of the persons. What would be mental cruelty in the life of two individuals belonging to a particular stratum of  the society may not amount to mental cruelty in respect of another couple belonging to a different stratum of society. 16. The burden lies upon the respondent to establish the charge of cruelty. The question is as to what is the standard of proof to be applied in order to judge whether the burden has been discharged or not. The rule which governs matrimonial cases is, that a fact could be established, if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a proof of a higher standard, which generally governs criminal trials  or trials involving inquiry into issues of a quasi criminal nature. Such proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not be imported in matters of pure civil nature especially matrimonial matters."

In the case concerned living separately of the parties for a long time, public insult, embarrassment to the appellant, agony and humiliation suffered by the appellant, charging the appellant with false allegations amounts to cruelty by the respondent towards her husband. The respondent wife is living separately for the last five years and presently staying at Delhi with a son born out of the wedlock of the parties.

From the perusal of the entire material on records, the following facts are proved which constitute cruelty:- a) Disrespectful and disparaging remarks by the respondent wife against the appellant-husband would amount to cruelty under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act as laid down in Smt. Santana Banerjee Vs. Sachindra Nath Banerjee AIR 1990 (Calcutta) 367.

b) The respondent-wife created a pressure on appellant-husband by alleging that she will commit suicide and kill her son and entangle the appellant in a false case would amount to be a cruelty as laid down in Harbhajan Singh Monga Vs. Amarjeet Kaur AIR 1986 MP 41.

c) The attitude of respondent-wife abusing the mother in law and making sarcastic remark against the husband before the relatives of husband would amount to be a cruelty as laid down in Rajinder 13 Bhardwaj Vs. Mrs. Anita Sharma AIR 1993 Delhi 135.

d) If the wife physically assaults the mother-in-law and abuses her will amount to be a cruelty.

e) The respondent has compelled the appellant to abandon his 75 years old and infirm mother.

f) The respondent has compelled the appellant to live separately in a rented house.

g) The respondent had compelled the appellant to live with her at Delhi after selling off his ancestral house.

h) The behavior of the respondent-wife made the life of the appellant-husband miserable and it became impossible for the appellant to stay with the respondent for the aforesaid reasons. Moreover, the respondent wanted the appellant to leave his own mother and get separated from his mother so that the respondent can live independently, and in that event it would become more torturous for the appellant to stay only with the respondent-wife to tolerate such nature and behavior of the respondent.

The High Court thus concluded, "On the basis of above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to the extent that there is no possibility of any reconciliation. Their relationship has reached to the point from where there appears no possibility of harmonious conjugal relationships or their being living together as husband and wife and discharging the matrimonial duties. This itself amounts to a cruelty, if allowed to continue. In these circumstances, the appeal is liable to be allowed."

It then ordered the petitioner to pay Rs 14 lakh to his wife for maintenance and education etc. of her son  under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act as one time alimony. The Court declared the marriage solemnized between the parties as dissolved.

The Order has been delivered by bench comprising of Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. & Hon’ble R. C. Khulbe, J. on 23-05-2019.

 

Read the order here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :