A division bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Virender Singh, was adjudicating upon a petition filed by the wife against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court only grounds of cruelty. The judges held that assessing cruelty is not a straight jacket formula and it is a subjective consideration that must be looked at in light of the context in which the accusations and allegations were made.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband. As per the averments of the wife, the behavior of the respondent/husband towards her was very cruel and rude. Perturbed and distressed by his behavior, she along with her minor son left his house and came to her father's place. Later, the respondent/husband presented an application for divorce before the Pachas (arbitrators) of the society. He made several allegations against her, but the ‘Panch’ of the society refused to give any order in his favor. He then filed a petition seeking divorce at Jaipur; which was subsequently transferred to Bhopal by the Supreme Court. The appellant/wife also filed a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondent/husband, and his family members but the police did not take any action on it. Aggrieved by this, she filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 200 of the CPC.
The appellant also filed a domestic violence petition against the respondent and his family members. She also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was subsequently withdrawn. The respondent filed a petition for declaring him guardian of their son and seeking his custody. After further aftermath, the divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the husband. The Family Court found both the grounds proved but holding that the statutory period of 2 years of desertion is not completed by the time of filing of the petition by the husband and, therefore, a decree cannot be granted on that ground of desertion, allowed the petition on the ground of ‘cruelty’ and dissolved their marriage by a decree of divorce. This decree is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant contended that despite contradictions, the trial Court wrongly believed the evidence produced by the respondent husband. The learned Family Court misjudged the conduct of the respondent. It completely ignored that he was denied a divorce by the ‘Panchas’ of the society and that it was only the actions of the respondent; which led to the separation of the parties. The conduct of the husband was not just and fair towards the appellant. He lodged several frivolous complaints against her just to harass her and to give away the custody of the child. While granting a divorce, the learned Family Court ignored the material contradictions that appeared in the statements of the respondent and the witnesses examined by him and erred in relying upon the statements of the witnesses of the respondent. It further ignored the fact of the pendency of her petition under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, the appellant prayed for setting aside the decree of divorce granted vide impugned judgment.
Observations of the Court:
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, wherein it was held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be made to the context in which they were made.
As per the court, on appreciation of the entire evidence, in its very lengthy judgment categorically touching each and every aspect, the ld. Family Court arrived at a conclusion that the statements of the husband and his witnesses are reliable. It further found that in cross-examination, both the sisters did not withstand their allegations. She could not produce any evidence supporting her allegations. Keeping in view the principles of the preponderance of probability, on the scrutiny of this entire evidence, the court found itself in consensus with the conclusions arrived at by the ld. Family Court.
The decision of the Court:
The appeal was dismissed. The decision of the Family Court was upheld.
Case Title: Smt. Santosh Meena vs Siddharth B.S. Meena
Coram: Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Virender Singh
Case No.: FIRST APPEAL No. 1797 of 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Ruchika Gohil
Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Rahul Diwakar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
