Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad was hearing an Appeal against the Judgement of Family Court whereby Trial Court had dismissed a Divorce Petition filed by Husband under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of Cruelty.

Appellant Husband's Case

The marriage was solemnized on 22.11.2004 between the appellant/Puneet Kumar Trivedi and respondent/Smt. Nitika Pathak as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. From the very beginning, the respondent/Smt. Nitika Pathak abused the family members of the appellant by using unparliamentary language and incorrectly blamed that family members of the appellant had humiliated her family members.

Time and again, the respondent quarreled with the family members of the appellant, who tried to stop the violence made by the respondent but no fruitful result was achieved. In the meantime, the appellant got a job of Medical Representative, at Meerut and the respondent was living with her father-in-law and mother-in-law at Delhi and she always used to scold them. She threatened to commit suicide.

In Feb 2006 his Wife went her home with her parents and when Appellant's Grandmother wanted to see her grand daughter-in-law, the respondent refused and humiliated her. The grandmother could not bear humiliation and due to heart attack, she died in March 2006 and even the respondent did not attend the last rituals of the grandmother.

It is also stated that in spite of the all ill deeds carried out by the respondent, the family members of the appellant tried there level best for conciliation between the parties to save the matrimonial house. In this regard, the mediation also took place but there was no fruitful result. As such the appellant filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But the Family Court dismissed the Petition.

Respondent Wife's Case

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has neither by way of any material nor by way of any cogent evidence is able to prove or establish that there was cruelty on the part of the respondent for not performing the matrimonial relations.

It was further submitted that the plea that the appellant and the respondent have being living separately for considerable long period of time and divorce decree on their ground ought to have granted, is unacceptable and the same cannot be considered as a ground for Divorce in a Petition filed on grounds of Cruelty.

Division Bench's Observations

Now a days in most of the cases, divorce is sought on the ground of Cruelty. The meaning of cruelty is also changed depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. "Cruelty" is an act of showing indifference to or delighting in another's pain. According to Little Lifco Dictionary 'cruelty' means, brutality; harshness or unkindness. But in the matrimonial cases, the dictionary meaning of cruelty has not been taken as it is. The word "cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act.

The bench also observed,"The courts have described the cruelty in different cases differently depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly "cruelty" may be infinite variety. It can be subtle or brutal. It may be physical or mental. It may be by words, gestures or by mere silence, violence or non violence. That is the reason why courts have never tried to give an exclusive definition of cruelty as understand in matrimonial law."

The bench added,"In Tolstoy's "Divorce and Matrimonial causes" it is sated "Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health bodily or mental or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger".....However, whether particular act amounts to cruelty or not depends on circumstances of a particular case.
No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what acts or conduct will amount to cruelty in any given case. What may amount to cruelty in one case may not be in another case. In deciding whether or not a particular state of affairs amounts to legal cruelty, the court has to consider the social status, the environment, the education, the mental and physical conditions and the susceptibilities of the innocent spouse as also the custom and manners of the parties. Whether acts and conducts complained of constitute cruelty have to be construed in reference to the whole matrimonial relationship. It may be that various acts or conduct complained of, by itself and in isolation to each other, do not amount to cruelty, but in their overall effect they may amount to cruelty.'

Hon'ble Judges of DB relied on several Supreme Court Cases during the discission namely, Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, 1987 Latest Caselaw 330 SC, (1998) 1 SCC 105, Shailendra Kumar Singh vs. Reeta Singh and another, 2019 SCC OnLine All 5316, Ravinder Kaur v. Manjeet Singh, (2019) 8 SCC 308, R. Srinivas Kaumar vs. R. Shametha,2019 Latest Caselaw 949 SC, (2019) 9 SCC 409 and Visnu Dutt Sharma vs. Manju Sharma, AIR 2009 SC 2254.

DB's Decision

'Taking into consideration the above said position of law on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the facts of the present case including the fact that admittedly the parties are living separately since 17.02.2006 till date, meaning thereby that the parties are living separately for more than fourteen years and litigation between the parties was initiated by filing divorce suit by the appellant in the year 2008, as also the observation made by the trial Court, quoted above, to the effect that the efforts to continue with the marriage have been failed and there is no possibility of reunion between the parties and the statement of counsel for the appellant to the effect that even at this stage there is no hope of settlement or reunion between the parties and no fruitful purpose would be served in maintaining the matrimonial relations between the parties as the matimonial bond is beyond repair and the relations between the parties are sufficiently spoiled and for all practical purpose there is an irretrievable break down of marriage, we are of the considered opinion that the finding given by the trial Court that the appellant is not entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of long separation/irretrievable breakdown of marriage is liable to be interfered and the judgment passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to decree of divorce.

The Division Bench accordingly allowed the Appeal and the judgment passed by the Family Court below was set aside and the Decree of Divorce is granted to the Husband.

Bench: Justice Anil Kumar, Justice Saurabh Lavania
Case Title: Puneet Kumat Trivedi v. Nitika Pathak
Case Details: FIRST APPEAL No.- 76 of 2014
Counsel for Petitioner: Adv. Anil K.Tripathi, Adv. Avinash Chandra
Counsel for Respondent: Adv. Anurag Narain

HC Judgement of Puneet Kumat Trivedi vs Nitika Pathak on Family Court Judges are duty bound to find out if Marriage is irretrievably broken down 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :