Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhuribai vs Bheemsingh on 6 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
1 FA-377-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
FIRST APPEAL No. 377 of 2020
BHURIBAI
Versus
BHEEMSINGH
Appearance:
Shri Chandrakant Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 388 of 2020
BHURIBAI
Versus
BHEEMSINGH
Appearance:
Shri Chandrakant Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Reserved on 01.03.2025
Delivered on 06.03.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Justice Gajendra Singh:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
2 FA-377-2020
First Appeal No.377/2020 is preferred by the wife/appellant
being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 in
RCSHM No.62/2016 whereby the petition for divorce on the ground
of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
has been rejected and First Appeal No.388/2020 is preferred being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2020 in RCSHM
No.61/2018 whereby the decree of restitution of conjugal rights
under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been passed in
favour of respondent/husband against the wife/appellant by Principal
Judge, Family Court, Shajapur.
2. Facts in brief are that a marriage was solomnized on
01.05.2015 as per Hindu rituals including saptpadi in village
Kohdiya Koshalpur, district Shajapur. At the time of marriage
appellant/petitioner Bhuribai has cleared 12th standard and she
expressed her desire to continue studies. The parents and family
members of in-laws agreed and gauna ceremony was solemnized on
16.07.2016 and elder brother of husband and relative viz. Suresh
took the petitioner to her matrimonial home only for a period of 2
days with an assurance that petitioner will return at her maternal
home. After the function, petitioner requested to come back to
maternal home. The members of her inlaws family intimated the
petitioner that you cannot continue the study and you have to reside
in the matrimonial home. It was also asked that very meager amount
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
3 FA-377-2020
of dowry has been given at the time of marriage and pressure was
created to fulfill the demand of Rs.1 lakh in cash and one motorcycle
and to fulfill the demand petitioner was harassed. The father of
petitioner informed police station Akodiya, district Shajapur and on
the intervention of PS Akodiya, petitioner succeeded to return her
maternal home on 28.07.2016. During her stay in matrimonial home
for 2-3 days she was subjected to unnatural sexual intercourse,
respondent/husband is in habit of drink and her life was put to
danger. She was not taken to hospital. She is not willing to continue
her marriage with the respondent/husband and filed a case under
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a
petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was filed on 21.11.2016.
3. The petition was contested by filing reply in which it was
admitted that at the time of marriage petitioner was 12th class pass
and she expressed her desire to continue the study and members of
inlaws family were agreed and they cooperated the petitioner to
continue the study and paid necessary expenses and petitioner is
pursuing her B.Sc. course and respondent has assured that he will
cooperate further study of petitioner/wife. He took the
petitioner/wife for Devdarshan and picnic after gauna ceremony and
during this period petitioner/wife was happy in the company of
respondent/husband and returned to her maternal home. Her father
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
4 FA-377-2020
received an amount of Rs.1 lakh from his elder brother Premsingh at
the occasion of ring ceremony of petitioner's brother and thereafter
petitioner's father received a further amount of Rs.1 lakh showing the
urgency of marriage ceremony in the house. Jewellery worth Rs.1
lakh, 1kg. karaunda of silver, 1/2 kg. anklet of silver, a patti of 250
gm. of silver, mangal sutra made of gold, gold tops, long kundal
jumki, 4 bangles of gold valued at Rs.1 lakh gifted at the time of
marriage are with the petitioner/wife. Rupees 15,000/- was received
by the father of wife at the time of gauna ceremony. He never
demanded Rs.1 lakh and motorcycle. He never asked to stop further
studies. He never committed domestic violence. Only to avoid
return of jewellery and money, this petition on false pretext has been
filed. A false case has been lodged against the husband.
4. The trial court framed total 4 issues and recorded evidence
of petitioner/wife as PW/1, her father as PW/2 and admitted
documents Ex.P/1 to P/6. Respondent/husband examined himself as
DW/1 and Gyansingh as DW/2. No document in evidence was
adduced by the respondent/husband.
5. After examination-in-chief of the husband as DW/1 on
28.08.2017 in RCSHM No.62/16 but before completing cross
examination, husband filed a petition on 12.03.2018 under section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
5 FA-377-2020
with the averments as were stated in her reply to the petition of
divorce with additional pleadings that wife has withdrawn herself
with the company of husband without reasonable excuse and prayed
for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
6. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights was replied
with the same averments that were pleaded in the petition for divorce
with additional pleadings that the petition for restitution of conjugal
rights has been filed only to frustrate the purpose of filing the
petition for divorce.
7. Trial court framed two issues and recorded the testimony of
Bheemsingh as PW/1 and Premsingh as PW/2 in support of the
petition for restitution of conjugal rights and recorded the evidence
of wife as DW/1.
8. Appreciating the evidence, Principal Judge, Family Court
recorded the findings in RCSHM No.62/16 that it is not proved that
husband committed cruelty towards wife and it is also not proved
that he committed unnatural sexual intercourse with the wife and
recorded the finding it is the wife who herself does not desire to live
with her husband and has filed the petition on false grounds and
recorded the finding in RCSHM No.61/2018 that wife has withdrawn
from the society of her husband without reasonable excuse and
dismissed the petition filed by the wife seeking divorce and allowed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
6 FA-377-2020
the petition of husband for restitution of conjugal rights.
9. Both the appeals have been filed by the wife on the ground
that Principal Judge, Family Court, Shajapur committed error in
appreciating the intention and behaviour of the husband towards
decency of the petitioner/wife. Appellant/wife appreciated the fact
that during the stay of wife with husband his conduct was causing
mental cruelty towards wife as allowing third person to share the
accommodation during trip is itself a mental cruelty. Trial court
ignored the fact that there is no possibility of living together the
petitioner and respondent as husband and wife in future.
10. Heard.
11. Counsel for the respondent in both the cases has supported
the judgment and decree of the trial court and contended that he
should be given an opportunity to save his family life.
12. Perused the record.
13. Proceedings of the trial court disclose that parties were
referred to mediation but the mediation was unsuccessful. This court
also referred the parties to mediation but before this court also the
mediation was unsuccessful.
14. Now before re-appreciating the evidence this court is
referring the principle applicable for determining whether the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
7 FA-377-2020
conduct complained of amounts to cruelty. Unlike the case of
physical cruelty mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct
evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the
facts and circumstances of the case. Feeling of anguish,
disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct
of other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and
circumstances as held in Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta - AIR
2002 SC 2562.
15. It has to be borne in mind that in section 13(1(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, legislature has used the word treated the
petitioner with cruelty and the word "has treated" denotes a
conscious action on the part of the respondents where the act of
cruelty is established. It is not necessary to establish that the
respondent had the requisite intention to commit the act. The
relevant part of Shoba Rani vs. Madhukar Reddy - 1988 (1) HLR
169 is being reproduced as below:
"The context and the set up in which the word 'cruelty'
has been used in the section seems to us, that intention is
not a necessary element in cruelty.... If the intention to
harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the
conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily
established. But the absence of intention should not make
any difference in the case, .... the relief to the party cannot
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
8 FA-377-2020
be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberated
or wilful ill-treatment."
16. Now this court is re-appreciating the evidence available on
record of Family Court. Para-12 of Mohansingh (PW/1) discloses
that respondent/husband is uneducated (merely he puts his name as
signature) and at the time of marriage, petitioner/wife has cleared her
12th standard examination and she was desirous to pursue her studies
further and she continued her graduation but respondent/husband
(DW/1) had admitted in para-12 of his statement that he did not bear
the expenses of her studies. It has been admitted that a matter of
domestic violence was filed before the court of Shajapur. This
witness has admitted the fact that when for the first time
petitioner/wife came to her matrimonial home then on the next day
respondent/husband took the wife on the pretext of picnic and also
took his relative Vinod with him for 2-3 days without maintaining
the privacy of the wife and where wife alleged unwelcoming
behaviour of the husband. It is admitted by Premsingh (PW/2) also
that when petitioner/wife was brought to the matrimonial home after
gauna ceremony then she was pursuing her studies and admission of
Bheemsingh (DW/1) that he did not bear the expenses of her studies
supports the statement of petitioner/wife that she was compelled to
discontinue her studies in matrimonial home.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
9 FA-377-2020
17. John Dewey, an American philosopher, psychologist and
educational reformer said that education is not just about preparing
for life, but it is life itself.
18. The Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain vs. State of
Karnataka & others - AIR 1992 SC 1858 recognized that "education
is a facet of life" and is considered an integral part of "right to life"
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, meaning that access to
education is essential for living a life with dignity.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 4 of Sobha Rani Vs.
Madhukar Reddi as reported in AIR 1988 SC 121, has observed as
under:
"The word 'cruelty' has not been defined. Indeed it could
not have been defined. It has been used in relation to
human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in
relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and
obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is
adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or
physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the
court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question
of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents
difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of
the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment in
the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable
apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
10 FA-377-2020
with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be
drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and
its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however,
be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad
enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or
the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be
enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will
be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 5 of Shobha Rani case
(supra) has further observed as under:
"It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been
marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties
and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change.
They are of varying degrees from house to house or person
to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about
the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations,
the Court should not search for standard in life. A set of
facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in
another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon
the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their
economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon
their culture and human values to which they attach
importance. The Judges and lawyers, therefore, should not
import their own notions of life. They may not go in
parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between
them and the parties. It would be better if they keep aside
their customs and manners. It would be also better if they
less depend upon precedents. Each case may be different.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
11 FA-377-2020
They deal with the conduct of human beings who are not
generally similar. Among the human beings there is no
limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty.
New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending
upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to
tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful
realm of cruelty.
21. It is also a fact that during the period of 10 years from the
solemnization of marriage on 01.05.2015 petitioner and respondent
were together only for a period of 3 days in the month of July, 2016
and that experience of the wife was a nightmare and thereafter they
never came in the company of each other.
22. Compelling the wife to discontinue her studies or creating
such an atmosphere that she is put in a position not to continue her
studies is equivalent to destroy her dreams in the beginning of their
marital life and forcing her to live with a person who is neither
educated nor eager to improve himself certainly amounts to mental
cruelty and we hold that it constitutes a ground of divorce under
section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Shajapur recorded the finding regarding issues no.1 &
2 ignoring this fact in RCS HM No.62/2016 and this is not a case
where she was taking advantage of her own fault but this is a case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
12 FA-377-2020
where wife was putting to sacrifice her dreams, career in the name of
marital obligations. Accordingly, findings of the trial court on issues
no.1 & 2 are set aside and it is found proved that respondent/husband
treated the petitioner/wife with mental cruelty and treating the
petitioner/wife with cruelty was a reasonable excuse to live
separately from the husband and trial court committed error
regarding issue no.1 in RCS HM No.61/2018 and it is found proved
that appellant/wife has withdrawn the society of respondent/husband
with reasonable excuse.
23. It is a case of irretrievable break down of marriage also as
the appellant and the respondent are living separately since July,
2016 and there is no possibility of reunion of the parties, hence in the
light of above, the orders of the Principal Judge, Family Court in
RCS HM No.62/2016 & RCS HM No.61/2018 are liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the marriage
solemnized on 01.05.2015 between the appellant and respondent is
dissolved on the ground mentioned in section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and the decree of restitution of conjugal rights in
favour of the respondent/husband and against the appellant is set
aside.
24. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5956
13 FA-377-2020
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
