The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently comprising of a Division Bench comprising Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma has said that if the wife is bent upon destroying the Career and Reputation of her husband by making complaints against him to his seniors, it would amount to Mental Cruelty and he would be entitled to a Divorce. (Devesh Yadav v. Meenal)
The bench was hearing the Plea filled by Indian Air force personnel to Divorce his wife.
The bench referring to various Supreme Court Judgement observed, “No Uniform Standard can be laid down and each Case will have to be decided, on its own Facts and Circumstances.”
The Court while accepting the husband’s Plea for Divorce observed, “The Conduct of the wife in filing a complaint making Unfounded, Indecent and Defamatory Allegations against her husband and parents-in-law indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that the Appellant and his parents are put in Jail and the Appellant is removed from his job. We have no manner of doubt that his Conduct of wife has caused Mental Cruelty to husband”
Facts of the case
In this case, the appellant-husband had petitioned the High Court to set aside a judgement and decree issued by the District Judge of Rohtak in 2013, which had dismissed his petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce.
The Husband sought dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife from the beginning of the marriage was cruel, and harsh and she used to pick up quarrels over trifles without any justifiable cause. Further, the respondent-wife deserted the appellant-husband in 2002 and since then she had not returned to the matrimonial home.
Whenever, the appellant went to meet from his place of posting to meet his wife, the wife’s parents did not allow him to meet the son and wife both. Later, in the year 2006, when the husband requested the wife to company her, she refused stating that is he tried to take her she would commit suicide.
In spite of best efforts, the respondent did not join the matrimonial home, he was compelled to institute a divorce petition. Further, despite giving undertaking before the Court that she would withdraw her complaint and maintenance application file before the Senior Air Force Officer, she did not do so and did not join the company of the appellant, hence, the decree of divorce was sought.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently has contended that impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the HMA is erroneous and contrary to the material on record as during her stay at matrimonial home, respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and she herself deserted the appellant-husband in April, 2002 without any reasonable cause. Efforts of the appellant to bring back the respondent to her matrimonial home went in vain since she refused to join the company of the appellant-husband. Learned counsel has further contended that respondent-wife made complaints to the senior officers of the appellant- husband in the Air Force, which caused great mental cruelty to him and affected his service career.
The learned counsel for the respondent-wife sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below and has contended that the appellant had not made out any ground to grant divorce. The appellant failed to prove cruelty on the part of the respondent. Learned counsel has further contended that respondent-wife has never deserted the appellant-husband, therefore, he is not entitled for decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty, desertion or on the ground of irretrievable break down of the marriage. Earlier also the appellant- husband had filed divorce petition in the Court of Additional District Judge, Rohtak. However, the matter was compromised on 21.12.2008 according to which parties mutually agreed to resolve all their disputes and appellant agreed to withdraw the divorce petition whereas respondent-wife assured that she would withdraw the application for maintenance filed before the senior Air Force officers. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that factum of lodging of FIR against the appellant and his family members was not pleaded in the petition under Section 13 of the HMA, therefore, appellant cannot be allowed to take benefit of the judgment of acquittal dated 16.04.2015, which is subsequent to the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2013 dismissing the petition under Section 13 of the HMA filed by the appellant. Only vague and baseless allegations have been levelled against the respondent. Therefore, he sought dismissal of the present appeal.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The Court at the outset observed that the filing of the complaint and initiation of criminal proceedings, which were found to be baseless and false, did cause harassment and torture to the husband and his family and that even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty, as had happened in the instant case.
The bench further noting that the respondent-wife was bent upon destroying the career and reputation of the appellant-husband as she made complaints against him to his senior officers in the Air Force, observed, "The conduct of the respondent-wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegations against her husband and parents-in-law indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that appellant and his parents are put in jail and the appellant is removed from his job. We have no manner of doubt that this conduct of respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband."
The court against this backdrop, noting that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife had been living separately since April 2002, and all the efforts of reconciliation had failed, allowed the instant appeal filed by the husband keeping in view the extra-ordinary facts and circumstances of the case.
As a result, the Court reversed the District Judge of Rohtak’s decision, and a divorce decree was granted in favour of the appellant-husband.
However, the Court ordered the appellant-husband to make an F.D. of ₹’20 lakhs in the name of the respondent-wife as permanent alimony.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
