Smt. Suman Khanna vs Shri Muneesh Khanna
2011 Latest Caselaw 962 Del

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     Judgment reserved on: 01.12.2010
                     Judgment delivered on: 18.02.2011


     FAO 439/2003 & Cross Objections No.1788/2003


SMT.SUMAN KHANNA                      ......Appellant
           Through: Mr.   R.P.  Shukla   with  Mr.
                    Ganjanan Kumar, Advocates.


                             Vs.



SHRI MUNEESH KHANNA             ......Respondent
           Through: Mr. K.R. Chawla, Advocate.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
    be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported             Yes
    in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

*

1. By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 the appellant seeks to set aside the

judgment and decree dated 3rd June, 2003 passed by the

learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi, whereby the petition filed

by the respondent under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the

Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the marriage between

the parties was dissolved on the ground of cruelty under

Section 13(1) (ia) of the said Act.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the

present appeal are that the parties got married on 13.4.90 at

Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Problems

started from the very inception of the marriage from the time

of the honeymoon and continued till the time they stayed

together. The main allegation of the respondent was that the

appellant was under the influence of her parents and would

leave the matrimonial home time and again. Disturbed by the

cruel conduct of the appellant, the respondent filed a petition

for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion which vide

judgment and decree dated 3. 6.03 was granted on the

ground of cruelty. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the

appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Mr.R.P.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant contended that the Exhibit PW- 1/1, on which

reliance has been placed by the learned trial court, was

forcefully got signed from the appellant. The contention of the

counsel was that the respondent husband clearly told the

appellant that if she wanted to save her marriage then she

had to sign the said agreement. Counsel thus submitted that

the said agreement was not signed by the appellant out of her

own will and volition, but only with a view to save her

matrimony. So far the allegation of suicide against the

appellant is concerned, counsel contended that the

respondent in his own cross-examination has admitted the

fact that the appellant could not have inserted her finger in

the socket due to the narrow width of the hole. Counsel

further submitted that the respondent had also admitted in

his cross-examination that there were no power plugs in any

portion of the tenanted home where the parties were living

together. Counsel also submitted that the respondent also

failed to prove the fact that the appellant made any attempt to

commit suicide by laying herself in front of the DTC bus. The

contention of the counsel was that the appellant being a

working woman has been travelling quite often in the DTC

buses and, therefore, she was not expected to take such a

step. Counsel also submitted that so far the affidavit Exhibit

PW- 1/2 is concerned, firstly the same was not proved in

accordance with the law and secondly nobody would execute

such an affidavit unless the same was to be filed in a court of

law. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the

allegation of the respondent that he was not served with

dinner when he visited his in laws in the month of May, 1990

is highly improbable. The contention of counsel for the

appellant was that it would be inconceivable that once the

husband was invited over dinner by the in-laws then he would

not be served with dinner while the other family members

would take dinner. Counsel thus stated that the learned Trial

Court has wrongly placed much reliance on this incident,

which in the given circumstances was highly improbable.

4. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that

even the incident of 9.5.90 lacks any credibility as the

respondent himself has admitted the fact that it was a

working day when he extended invitation to his friend Mr.

Kaushal Kumar Malik for lunch. The contention of counsel

was that the appellant was also working in the same office

and, therefore, on a working day it was highly improbable

that the husband would send his wife to the residence to

prepare lunch for all the three persons. Counsel also

submitted that the said witness Mr. Kaushal Kumar Malik was

not produced in evidence by the respondent and for

withholding the said material witness the learned Trial Court

ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the

respondent. Counsel also submitted that the respondent in

his cross examination admitted the fact that he reached back

home at 4.00 P.M. on 9.5.1990 alongwith his friend which

cannot be a usual time for taking lunch as the respondent in

his cross examination admitted the fact that usually he took

lunch at 2 p.m or 2.30 p.m. Counsel also submitted that no

quarrel or any incident had taken place on 9.5.1990. PW--2

Smt. Nirmala Tiwari in her evidence clearly admitted the fact

that no fight took place between the parties on 9.5.1990.

Counsel contended that no evidence was led by the

respondent to prove the fact that the appellant had cut short

the honeymoon trip at the instance of her parents and even in

the absence of any proof the learned trial court has heavily

relied upon the said allegation. Counsel submitted that the

respondent also did not prove the fact that after cutting short

the said honeymoon trip he had joined the office before the

leave period expired. Counsel further submitted that the

parties would not have stayed at Ambala after their return

from honeymoon had there been any curtailment in the

honeymoon period at the instance of the appellant. Counsel

also submitted that it is not the case of the respondent that

the appellant had immediately gone to the house of her

parents after returning from honeymoon. Counsel submitted

that the respondent failed to prove on record that any

complaint was lodged by the appellant with the RBI Women

Forum as no evidence was led by the respondent to prove

such a fact. Counsel further submitted that a false allegation

was leveled by the respondent that he was not being allowed

to visit his parents' house at Ambala and the falsity of this

allegation is apparent from the fact that even the delivery of

the first child had taken place at Ambala while better medical

facilities were available in Delhi. Counsel further submitted

that the learned trial court has also given a wrong finding

with regard to Ex. PW1/3 dated 14.8.90, as the said document

was neither signed by the appellant nor by her parents. PW 3

Mr. B.L Chawla has also deposed in his evidence that the said

document was not signed by the appellant. In support of his

arguments, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelam

Kumar Vs. Dayarani JT 2010 (6) SC 441.

5. Refuting the arguments of counsel for the

appellant, Mr. Chawla counsel for the respondent submitted

that the appellant in her cross examination as RW--1 has duly

admitted not only her own signatures but the signatures of

her mother and brother on Ex. PW1/1 and same is the position

so far her affidavit Ex. PW1/2 is concerned. The contention of

the counsel was that appellant is a well educated lady holding

M.Com degree and therefore she had signed the said

document after having fully gone through the contents of the

same and it was never the case of the appellant that she had

signed the said document to save her marriage.

6. Counsel further submitted that differences

between the parties had arisen right at the beginning of their

married life and the appellant had left the matrimonial house

on 5.6.90. The contention of the counsel was that the said

agreement dated 14.6.90 was signed by the appellant after

fully realizing her faults and the respondent wanted to

ensure that she would not repeat any such acts again.

Counsel thus submitted that a detailed affidavit was signed by

the appellant which was duly witnessed by the parents of the

appellant and father of the respondent and other witnesses.

Counsel further submitted that the appellant in her cross-

examination also admitted the fact that she was not happy

during her stay at Shimla. Counsel also submitted that the

appellant did not cross-examine PW--2, Smt. Nirmala Tiwari

on her deposition with regard to the attempts made by the

appellant to commit suicide, first time by making an attempt

to insert her finger in the socket and second time by

threatening to come under the DTC bus. PW--2 further

confirmed the visit of Mr. Kaushal Malik on 9.5.90 and she

was not cross-examined by the appellant so as to refute the

visit of Mr. Kaushal Malik on that day.

7. Counsel for the respondent further argued that the

respondent had duly proved on record the incident which had

taken place on 05.06.1990 when the respondent was

humiliated by the father of the appellant in the presence of

the local people. Drawing attention of this Court to the cross-

examination of PW-1, counsel submitted that the visit of the

appellant's parents to the matrimonial house at Multan Nagar

on 05.06.1990 has been duly admitted by the appellant

herself, as suggestion was given by the appellant to the

respondent confirming the visit of the appellant's parents on

the said date. Counsel also stated that Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-

1/2 were executed by the appellant keeping in view the entire

background of the facts of the preceding dates. Counsel also

stated that the visit of Mr. Kaushal Kumar Malik has been

duly admitted by the appellant herself, although she has taken

a stand that he was invited for tea and there was no provision

in the house to offer lunch to him. Counsel also stated that

visit of Mr.Kaushal Kumar Malik has also been confirmed by

PW-2 Smt.Nirmala Tiwari in her evidence. In support of his

arguments, counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the

following judgments:

(i) Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli I (2006) DMC 489 SC

(ii) Sujata Uday Patil vs. Uday Patil I (2007) DMC 6 SC

(iii) Pranati Chatterjee vs. Goutam Chatterjee I (2007) DMC 89

DB -Calcutta High Court

(iv) Rita Das Biswas vs. Trilokesh Das Biswas I (2007) DMC 96

DB -Gauhati High Court

(v) Sanghamitra Ghosh vs. Kajal Kumar Ghosh I (2007) DMC

105 SC

(vi) M/s Chunni Lal vs. Hartford Fire Insurance AIR 1958 Punjab

(vii) Traders Syndicate vs. Union of India AIR 1983 Calcutta 337

(viii) Mahant Mela Ram vs. SGPC AIR 1992 P & H 252

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at

considerable length and gone through the records.

9. The respondent had filed a petition under Section

13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and vide

judgment and decree dated 03.06.2003, the learned trial

court allowed the petition of the respondent on the ground of

cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the said Act, while on the

ground of desertion, the petition was dismissed. Feeling

aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the appellant-

wife has preferred the present appeal, while a cross-appeal

was also filed by the respondent challenging the finding of the

learned trial court dismissing the petition of the respondent

under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the said Act on the ground of

desertion.

10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel

for the respondent did not press the cross-appeal filed by the

respondent and, therefore, arguments were heard by this

Court confining to the challenge made by the appellant to the

said judgment and decree dated 03.06.2003.

11. The prime incidents of cruelty mainly relied upon

by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and

decree dated 03.06.2003 can be enumerated as under:-

(i) As per the respondent, the agreement and affidavit

dated 14.6.90 duly proved on record by the respondent

as Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-1/2 respectively, clearly

reflect that there was a constant interference of the

parents of the appellant in the matrimony as the

appellant was under the constant influence of her

parents and she used to leave the matrimonial house

time and again at the instance of her parents.

(ii) The appellant made an attempt to commit suicide by

inserting her finger in the socket in the first week of

August, 1990 and once she also gave a threat to commit

suicide by laying before the DTC bus.

(iii) The document Ex.PW-1/3 was proved on record by

PW-3 Shri B.L.Chawla to prove the fact that the

appellant had left the company of the respondent at the

instance of her parents. By this document also, the

respondent proved the continuous interference of the

parents of the appellant in their matrimonial life.

(iv) Humiliation of the respondent when a colleague of the

respondent Mr.Kaushal Malik was not served with

lunch on 09.05.1990, although he was invited for lunch

and the appellant was sent back home from her office to

prepare lunch for them.

(v) On 5.6.90, both the parents of the appellant came to the

matrimonial home at Multan Nagar and the father of

the appellant was drunk and created a scene outside

the house by alleging that the respondent had taken

dowry in the marriage and that the appellant is not

being given food.

(vi) Physical assault of the respondent by the father of the

appellant at appellant's parental house in the presence

of the appellant after the celebration of their first

marriage anniversary at Ambala on 13.4.91.

(vii) Manhandling of the respondent by the brother of

the appellant on 03.07.1991, the incident which

happened in the presence of the land lady Mrs.Nirmala

Tiwari and a tenant Mrs.Jain.

12. The marriage between the parties was solemnized

according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 13.04.1990 and

the relationship between the parties soured right from the

very beginning. As per the respondent, their honeymoon trip

was curtailed due to the intervention of the parents of the

appellant. Execution of the agreement and the affidavit just

within a period of about two months of the marriage no doubt

is an unusual step, but the precise question which would arise

is that under what circumstances the need arose for the

parties to execute the agreement Ex.PW-1/1 and for the

respondent to sign the affidavit Ex.PW-1/2.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

argued that the said affidavit and the agreement were signed

by the appellant just with a view to save her marriage, as

otherwise she would not have agreed to sign the said

documents. Undoubtedly, both the parties are well educated

and were employed in the same Bank and it cannot be easily

believed that the appellant would have signed such a detailed

agreement duly supported by her affidavit without there

being any background of repeated visits of the appellant to

her parental home and constant interference of the parents of

the appellant in her matrimonial life. So far the averments of

the agreement and affidavit highlighting the fact that there

was no exchange of dowry articles and only a few articles

were presented in the marriage and that the marriage was a

simple affair , this Court does not find anything wrong in the

same as due to stringent criminal provisions, the parents and

the family members of the husband often become the easy

targets and victims of humiliation and embarrassment visiting

the Crime Against Women Cell, Police Stations and the Courts

and sometimes to the extent of suffering imprisonment. It was

probably to save such a situation, that the aforesaid

assertions relating to dowry articles must have been inserted

in the said agreement and affidavit. Through the said

affidavit, the parents of the appellant also gave some sort of

assurance to the respondent that they will not interfere in any

manner whatsoever in the matrimonial lives of the parties.

Such a written statement given by the parents of the

appellant does give strength to the plea of the respondent

that there was a constant interference from the side of the

parents and family members of the appellant in their

matrimonial life. The said agreement and the affidavit have

not been disputed by the appellant. The agreement is also

signed by the appellant, her parents as well as her brother

and from the side of the respondent, the respondent himself,

his father Mr. Kedar Nath Khanna, Mr O.P Tiwari and Mr. K.K

Malik. The plea taken by the appellant that the said affidavit

and the agreement were signed by her under threat is not at

all convincing as the said affidavit and the agreement were

not only signed by the appellant herself but by her parents

and brother as well. The appellant has also taken a plea in her

written statement that the respondent had procured her

signatures on blank papers and blank stamp papers and even

she had signed the suicide note with a view to save her

marriage, but no weightage can be given to such

unsubstantiated pleas as the appellant has not produced her

parents and her brother in the witness box to prove her

defence that the said documents were executed by all of them

under the alleged threat of the respondent. There is thus no

reason to disbelieve the said documents duly proved on

record as Ex.PW-1/1 and PW-1/2 which give a clear picture

about the continuous interference of the parents in the

matrimonial life of the appellant and her husband.

14. The second incident, on which reliance was placed by

the learned trial court to grant decree of divorce on the

ground of cruelty, was that the appellant had once attempted

to commit suicide by inserting her finger in the socket and

second time when she had given a threat to lay down before

the DTC bus. This testimony of the respondent-husband was

duly corroborated by PW-2 Smt.Nirmala Tiwari, the land lady

of the house, who is an independent witness. The learned trial

court has rightly given due credence to the testimony of PW-2

Smt.Nirmala Tiwari, who in her cross-examination, deposed

that in her presence the appellant gave a threat of committing

suicide by coming in front of DTC bus. PW-2 also supported

the testimony of the respondent-husband with regard to the

attempt made by the appellant in the year 1990 to commit

suicide by putting her finger in the socket. The argument of

counsel for the appellant that the width of the socket was too

narrow for the insertion of the finger lacks force as it is not

the case of the respondent that literally she had put her finger

inside the socket and had it been so then certainly the

appellant would have received an electric shock, which is not

the case of the respondent in the divorce petition.

15. Considering the next incident with regard to the

document Ex. PW 1/3, the argument of counsel for the

appellant was that Ex.PW-1/3 dated 14.08.1990 was neither

signed by the appellant nor by her parents and, therefore, no

weightage could have been given by the learned trial court to

such a document. This argument of learned counsel for the

appellant is devoid of any force as Mr.B.L.Chawla entered the

witness box and proved the said document as Ex.PW-1/3. The

appellant has not disputed the fact that she left the

matrimonial house on 14.08.1990 when the said writing was

executed by Mr.B.L.Chawla. Simply because the said

document was not signed by the appellant and her parents

would not imply that no meeting was arranged of the people

of the locality on 14.08.1990 or that the appellant did not take

the decision to leave the matrimonial home on 14.08.90.

16. Coming to the next incident of 9.5.1990 when a

friend of the respondent husband was invited for lunch at

their house, the argument of the counsel for the appellant was

that the respondent did not suffer any humiliation, as the

respondent could not have invited his friend for lunch on a

working day. The contention of counsel for the appellant was

that the name of Mr.Kaushal Kumar Malik was duly enlisted

in the list of witnesses of the respondent, but still he was not

produced in the witness box to depose and therefore the

learned trial court should have drawn an adverse inference

against the respondent. This argument of counsel for the

appellant is also devoid of any merit. No doubt Mr. Kaushal

Kumar Malik would have been the best witness to prove the

alleged humiliation inflicted by the appellant on the

respondent on that day when he was invited for lunch, but

considering the fact that PW2 Smt. Nirmala Tiwari, who is the

landlady of the respondent and is residing in the same very

property in her deposition confirmed the visit of the said

friend Mr. Kaushal Kumar Malik on 9.5.1990 and also the fact

that the appellant in her deposition also admitted the visit of

Mr. Malik on the same day, therefore, withholding of the said

evidence of Mr. Kaushal Kumar Malik will not prove fatal to

the case of the respondent. The appellant in her examination-

in-chief has admitted the fact that she had served the said

friend with tea and biscuits and on that the respondent

started quarrelling with her in the presence of the said friend

on the ground that she had not prepared food for him. The

explanation given by the appellant for not preparing the food

in her examination-in-chief is that there was no provision in

the house and secondly because it was not the time for

dinner. This explanation given by the appellant cannot hold

any water. To say that there was no provision in the house for

preparing lunch and the time when the said friend of the

respondent visited the house was not suitable for dinner,

cannot be accepted as once the husband and wife are both

earning and are residing together the kitchen of the house is

expected to be properly equipped with necessary grocery and

eatable items. So far question of timing for lunch is

concerned, the same can always vary and lunch at 4 p.m in

metropolitan cities like Delhi is not that unusual.

17. So far the incident of 05.06.1990 when the

respondent was alleged to have been humiliated by the father

of the appellant in the presence of the local people is

concerned; it was proved on record by the respondent that

the parents of the appellant had visited the matrimonial house

at Multan Nagar on 05.06.1990. The affidavit and the

agreement which were executed by the appellant and her

parents on 14.06.1990 also clearly suggest that the said

incident of 05.06.1990 was a pre-cursor to the execution of

the said documents. The testimony of the respondent about

the said incident of 05.06.1990 remained unrebutted as

nothing contrary to the same could be elicited by the

appellant from the respondent during his cross-examination.

19. Without going into the other allegations of cruelty

leveled by the respondent and the minor contradictions in the

cross-examination of the evidence of the respondent and the

two witnesses adduced by him, there is no room to disbelieve

the case of the respondent duly proved by him with the help

of the said two witnesses PW 2 and PW3. I also do not find

any infirmity in the finding of the learned Trial Court taking a

view that the agreement and the affidavit proved on record by

the respondent as Exhibit PW 1/1, PW 1/2 explicitly show that

there was a regular interference from the side of the parents

of the appellant and she used to leave the matrimonial home

at their provocation and instigation and due to that there

arose a need to execute the said documents.

20. Now the question that arises before the court is

that whether the above said acts proved by the respondent

amount to ―cruelty‖ as envisaged under section 13(1) (ia) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage.

Cruelty has not been defined in the Act and rightly so as it is

not possible to put this concept in a strait jacket formula.

Cruelty can be physical or mental, intentional or

unintentional. The present is a case of mental cruelty where

the respondent husband has alleged that the behaviour of the

appellant caused him mental pain, suffering and humiliation.

But it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the normal wear

and tear of married life cannot be stretched too far to be

regarded as cruelty for the purposes of this section. The

conduct complained of should be grave and weighty so as to

satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship

between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it

cannot be reasonably expected by them to live together

without mental pain, agony and distress. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4

SCC 511 after analyzing all the case laws of India and other

countries gave a non exhaustive list of acts that may amount

to mental cruelty. It was held that:

"72. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other Courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of 'mental cruelty' within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.

......

74. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behavior which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."

21. Cruelty thus depends on case to case basis and

what may be cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in the

other. Sometimes a taunt or an insult may be more painful

than a physical assault. The factors that may be considered

are the social status of the parties, the economic background,

education and upbringing, for coming to the conclusion

whether the conduct complained of would touch the pitch of

severity which would make it impossible for the parties to live

with each other. The incidents alleged in the present case are

of a nature where apart from the actual physical assault by

the brother and father of the appellant on different occasions,

evidently the appellant has herself not fulfilled her marital

obligations. The parties got married on 13.4.90, and on the

honeymoon itself there arose differences between them. The

appellant left the house for the first time within two months of

her marriage which is highly unusual for a newly married lady

unless something catastrophic takes place. The petition for

divorce was filed by the respondent on 15.1.92, just within a

period of almost two years from the date of the marriage

demonstrating that the desiderata of matrimony,

understanding and tolerance were abysmally amiss between

the parties. It was also proved on record by the respondent

that the appellant had threatened to commit suicide on two

occasions. It was held by the Apex Court in the case of N.G

Dastane vs S.Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534 that the threat

by the spouse to put an end to her own life would amount to

cruelty. It was further reiterated by this court in the case of

Smt.Savitri Balchandani vs. Mulchand Balchandani AIR

1987 Delhi 52 and now recently by the Bombay High Court

in 2009 in the case of Mrs. Sanjivani Vs. Mr. Bharat that

the threat by the wife to commit suicide would come in the

ambit of mental cruelty. The threat of ending her life by the

wife and constant bickering to the extent that the husband

has to invariably make sure that she does not take an extreme

step to commit suicide would undoubtedly create a hostile

atmosphere where the wife would treat the husband as her

enemy and would certainly cause great stress to the husband.

Hence, the persistent piquing conduct of the appellant in the

present case is antithetic to the natural love, affection, trust

and conjugal kindness and has caused to the respondent

mental pain, agony and suffering which amounts to mental

cruelty as envisaged under section 13(1) (ia) of the Act.

22. It is often found that the malaise of the interference of

parents in the married life of their daughters has become a

major cause playing havoc with the matrimonial lives of young

couples. All the parents guide, teach and discipline their

daughters and are concerned about her welfare after

marriage but it is imperative for the parents to draw a line as

the prime concern should be that their daughter is happily

settled in a new atmosphere at the husband's place but not

with day-to-day monitoring of the affairs taking place at the

matrimonial home of the daughter. Parents should not

become uninvited judges of the problems of their daughter,

becoming an obstacle in the daughter's married life, to plant

thoughts in her mind and gain control over her and promoting

disharmony in her family life. They are expected to advise,

support and believe in their upbringing maintaining a discreet

silence about the affairs of the matrimonial relationship. The

present case is an unfortunate example where the parents of

the appellant, instead of putting out the fire have fuelled and

fanned it, resulting in the disruption of the sacred bond of

marriage.

23. Based on the above discussion, this Court does not find

any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and

decree passed by the learned Trial Court. The judgment of the

Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the

appellant in the case of Neelam Kumar (supra) will be of no

help to the case of the appellant as the ground of irretrievable

break down of marriage has not been taken into consideration

to uphold the order of the learned Trial Court.

24. In the light of the foregoing, there is no merit in

the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

February 18, 2011             KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
dc/rkr