The Chhattisgarh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal upheld a Raipur family court's decision to grant a divorce to a man on the ground of cruelty.
The Court observed that the act of a wife visiting her husband's workplace and making a scene by using abusive language would amount to cruelty. The bench stated that it was proven that the wife would frequently visit the husband's workplace and cause a disturbance by using foul language. (Nalini Mishra v. Surendra Kumar Patel)
Facts of the case
The 32-year-old man, a resident of Dhamtari district, had married the woman, a widow (34) and Raipur resident, in 2010. Later, the man filed a plea in the Raipur family court seeking divorce citing various grounds, one of them being that she would abuse and prevent him from meeting his parents and other family members.
In December, 2019, the family court, after evaluating facts and evidence on record, allowed the application of the husband, thereby granting him a decree of divorce. Subsequently, the woman challenged the decision in the HC.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submitted that the learned 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 is 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 submitted that the wife is 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 would submit 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 further submitted 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.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submitted that the different reports made over a different point of time in the year 2017 before the police would show the state of affairs in between the parties. He would further submitted 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. He would further submitted that even the allegation of illicit relation with the cousin sister was also made when she came to their house to appear in an examination, which would show the mental status of the wife. Besides 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 which do not call for any interference.
Courts observation & Judgment
The bench observed that the overall assessment of the evidence would show that the appellant/wife used to abuse the husband on trivial issues of which the husband made complaints many times, however, the same being non-cognizable, the police did not take cognizance of it.
The Court took note of the ruling in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, wherein the court held that no uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance and defined a non-exhaustive list of instances that constitutes mental cruelty. It further relied on Narendra v. K. Meena (2016) 9 SCC 455, wherein the court 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 S.13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be sustainable.
The Court opined, “in such a situation when a wife goes to the office premises of the husband, abuses him and accuses him of certain relations, naturally, it would result in diminishing the image of the husband before the colleagues and the office stature will certainly go down. Except for such an 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. To pull back the husband to attend the marriage procession in the mid-way, whereby the husband was forced to leave the marriage of his younger brother is also an unnatural cruel act. Such an act would bring down the image and the prestige of a family in the public hike, which may also amount to cruelty.”
The court taking into consideration overall evidence, concluded that the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court did not require any interference and thus, the HC affirmed the finding arrived at by the Family Court.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
