Bimal Chandra Mittal vs Renuka Mittal
2012 Latest Caselaw 980 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: February 13, 2013

+                           MAT.APP. 43/2012

       BIMAL CHANDRA MITTAL                        ..... Appellant
               Represented by: Mr.Anant Bhushan, Advocate.


                            versus


       RENUKA MITTAL                                          ..... Respondent
               Represented by: Nemo.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Appellant and the respondent are husband and wife. The memo of parties would show that they reside under one roof AT H-58B, Saket, New Delhi-110017. They were married on February 23, 1975 and were blessed with two daughters who were born in the year 1977 and 1980 and are happily settled.

2. The wear and tear of life has propelled the appellant to seek divorce from his wife and he does so alleging cruelty. Petition seeking divorce was filed on December 20, 2010 i.e. after more than 35 years of the married life.

3. What are the acts of cruelty alleged? We refer to the pleadings

in the divorce petition. In paragraph 3, the appellant states that from the very first week of the marriage he was treated with cruelty as respondent was of the opinion that she got married to a wrong person and that she never accepted appellant as her husband by heart, feelings and emotion. In paragraph 4 the appellant pleads that the respondent created unhealthy, uncongenial and incongruous atmosphere in the family. In paragraph 5 he pleads that his wife repeatedly told him to obtain a divorce. In paragraph 6 he pleads that his wife took a vow to harass him and she always neglected him. In paragraph 7, appellant pleads that he bore the brunt for the sake of his daughters till they got settled in life. In paragraphs 8 to 12 he pleads that his wife is an arrogant lady and misbehaves with him and there used to be constant arguments between the couple. In paragraph he pleads that both joined Art of Living. In paragraph 14 he pleads that in the year 2003 when his mother was admitted at AIIMS the appellant had an attack of depression and remained unwell for 3 to 4 months and his wife would not co-operate with him. He pleads that he and his wife started associating themselves in the activities of Art of Living. He pleads that the husband and wife are living like strangers and not exchanging a single word.

4. The deposition of the appellant before the learned Family Judge is on similar lines and we find that the respondent is happy sitting in the house. She never contested the proceedings before the Trial Court nor in appeal, save and except she appeared through counsel in appeal only on October 01, 2012.

5. The learned Family Judge has rightly declined divorce on the grounds of cruelty because we find no specific incident of cruelty alleged. The vague and general allegations of cruelty are nothing but an exaggerated

versions of petty quibbles and trifling differences resulting in exaggerated and magnified version being projected.

6. It has to be remembered that the appellant and his wife were blessed with two daughters who are happily settled and thus the claim in the divorce petition that from day one the respondent shunned the company of the appellant is hard to believe.

7. The truth would lie in the averments made in para 13 and 14 of the divorce petition. As admitted by the appellant, he and his wife engaged themselves meaningfully in the activities of Art of Living and this happened when the appellant had obviously retired from service. By the time the two daughters were married. Age took its toll. The mother of the appellant was admitted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the appellant admits having gone into depression due to said fact. By the time even the respondent had aged. It is at this stage that events beyond the control of the appellant and his wife overtook them. That the appellant and his wife engaging themselves with the activities of Art of Living would show that the focus had shifted from matrimonial bliss to spiritual bliss. And rightly so. At some stage in life, spirituality brings more happiness than anything material, temporal or physical. But it is difficult for the mind to detach itself from the surroundings. Somewhere the wear and tear starts breaking the will. Assertion by the appellant that when his mother was hospitalized in AIIMS he broke down mentally is an evidence of this wear and tear. But not all wear and tear, not all hard words exchanged, not all hard frowns thrown, not all cold glances, are cruelty.

8. Since the appellant is in Court we have requested him to find solace in his house in the spiritual company of his ardhangini and wishing

him all the best in his endeavour and reminding him that the Art of Living teaches us to be composite : to blend the body and the mind and achieve bliss, we dismiss the appeal but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 13, 2013 dk