The Supreme Court held in this case that repeated filing of cases itself to amount to mental cruelty. It was further opined by the Court that in view of the legal position these continuing acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to the institution of the petition.
Brief Facts
The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife decided to marry each other as per the Hindu rites and customs. The wife claimed that she was coerced into marrying the appellant without giving her consent, and therefore she left the marriage hall. She was persuaded but all in vain. The marriage was never consummated. As the marriage did not work out since its inception, the appellant issued a notice seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights soon thereafter, on the ground that the appellant and his family demanded dowry and, on being unable to oblige, the appellant’s brothers took him away from the Respondent’s company, rendering consummation of the marriage impossible. She claimed that it was the appellant who refused to cohabit with her.
The Appellant filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. After five years, divorce was granted on the ground of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. After 6 days, the appellant got married for the second time. The Respondent- wife filed an appeal against the divorce decree, and the appellate court reversed the divorce decree and granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Consequently, the husband filed a second appeal in which the decree of divorce granted by the trial court was restored.
It took 15 years of litigation, which inter alia posed a question mark on the status of the second marriage of the appellant. The wife filed a review petition inter alia on the ground that it was not within the jurisdiction of the High Court or the trial court to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The High Court noticed some aspects of alleged cruelty and dissolved the marriage by passing a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Thus, the review petition was allowed by the impugned order, which has been assailed in the instant appeal.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court noted at the outset that it granted decrees of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage exercising its unique jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to do complete justice between the parties. Under Hindu Law, marriage is sacramental in character and is supposed to be an eternal union of two people. Society at large does not accept divorce, given the heightened importance of marriage as a social institution in India. Or at least, it is far more difficult for women to retain social acceptance after a decree of divorce. A marriage is more than a seemingly simple union between two individuals. As a social institution, all marriages have legal, economic, cultural, and religious ramifications. The norms of marriage and the varying degrees of legitimacy it may acquire are dictated by factors such as marriage and divorce laws, prevailing social norms, and religious dictates. Functionally, marriages are seen as a site for the propagation of social and cultural capital as they help in identifying kinship ties, regulating sexual behaviour, and consolidating property and social prestige.
With respect to the factual aspects of this case, the Court observed that no doubt, the courts below did not find adequate material to come to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to divorce on grounds of cruelty. However, there are many subsequent circumstances that have arisen in the present case which necessitated the examination of this aspect. The question, thus, is whether the respondent’s conduct after the initial trigger for divorce amounts to mental cruelty. The Court pointed out the following aspects of the case:
The respondent resorted to filing multiple cases in courts against the appellant. Such repeated filing of cases itself has been held in judicial pronouncements to amount to mental cruelty.
Respondent filed a Writ Petition praying for a writ of mandamus to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant, who was working as an Asst. Professor in a College. This writ petition was dismissed. The respondent sought some information from the College vide an RTI application. She claimed the information received from the college was insufficient and filed an appeal. She sought the service records pertaining to the appellant, apart from other documents such as the identity card issued to the appellant under the Star Health Insurance Scheme and prior permission obtained by the appellant for purchasing a piece of property owned by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board etc.
The respondent thereafter filed a Writ Petition. Even the information already furnished to her was again sought for. The Madras High Court opined that the respondent raised unnecessary queries. Her queries sought information about her husband’s remarriage or whether he was living with somebody else, well known to her, and the proceedings were found to be an abuse of the process of the RTI Act.
The respondent made representations to the college authorities seeking initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on account of the second marriage despite the fact that the second marriage took place soon after the decree of divorce. She even made representations to the Director of Collegiate Education and the Secretary, Department of Higher Education (Tamil Nadu). Thus, she sought to somehow ensure that the appellant loses his job. Filing of such complaints seeking removal of one’s spouse from job has been opined as amounting to mental cruelty. The Court noted that the respondent-wife was harassing the appellant at his place of work and that she threatened the appellant of physical harm in front of his colleagues and complained to the appellant’s employer threatening to file a criminal complaint against him. The first appellate court brushed aside these incidents as having not been fully established on a perception of wear and tear of marriage.
It was further opined by the Court that in view of the legal position these continuing acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to the institution of the petition. There was no initial integration itself which would allow disintegration afterwards. The fact that there have been continued allegations and litigation proceedings and that can amount to cruelty is an aspect taken note of by the Supreme Court. In the conspectus of all the aforesaid facts, this is one case where it is difficult to accept that the marriage soon after the decree of divorce, within 6 days, albeit 6 years after the initial inception of marriage, amounts to conduct which can be held against the appellant. In the conspectus of all the aforesaid facts, this is one case where both the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the ground of cruelty on account of subsequent facts would favour the grant of decree of divorce in favour of the appellant.
Held
Thus in view that a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties be passed not only in the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage but also on account of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act in light of the subsequent conduct of the respondent during the pendency of judicial proceedings at various stages.
Case Details
Name: Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal
Date of Decision: September 13, 2021
Bench: Hon’ble Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hrishikesh Roy
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
