Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar
Date of Judgement: February 10, 2010
Facts of the Case: The marriage between the parties took place as per Hindu rites at New Delhi on 17.11.1991. For a short period after the marriage, the couple stayed at Meerut where the husband was posted as a Captain in the Indian Army. Mutual cohabitation of the parties seemed to come to an end on 30.12.1992 and they lived separately since then. A daughter was born to them on 2.6.1993. On 24.11.1993 the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. He described his wife as quarrelsome, rude and ill-mannered and also stated his wife as misusing her position as an advocate. According to him, she had constantly threatened him and his family that she along with her two uncles, who too are advocates, would make their lives miserable. The husband also complained that the wife had been making baseless complaints to his superiors in which she had made numerous false allegations about the behaviour of the husband and his family even prior to the marriage ceremony. The husband further complained that even during the short period of cohabitation, her behaviour was erratic, inhuman and unbearable and she would deliberately indulge in erratic sexual behaviour. She had also registered FIR on 19.1.1994 under Section 406, 498-A, IPC. The police raided the flat of the parents of the husband. She took away all her belongings including the Maruti car it was alleged that she even took the ornaments belonging to the husband and his parents. She made false allegations against his father, advocate and the son of the advocate. With these allegations, he approached the court seeking divorce.
By counter allegations, the wife claimed that the husband and his family had started treating her with cruelty when the unwarranted demands for dowry were not met by her parents and that her husband deliberately disrupted the marriage as he wanted to get married to someone else. She complained about the deliberate neglect by the husband of his matrimonial towards her and his parental duties towards their newly born daughter. She denied all the allegations made by the husband. She stated that their marriage was by extortion. She was harassed by the in-laws who were expecting a sum of more than 30-lakh rupees to be spent in the marriage. She was informed by the mother-in-law that her son was destined to marry twice as per the horoscope. While denying the allegations with regard to sexual misbehavior, she stated that in fact the husband tried to have sexual intercourse during menstruation period or after conception.
Issue: In this appeal, the wife had challenged the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana where the High Court had set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and granted a decree of divorce to the husband.
Judgement: The court considered the conclusion by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in which the behaviour of the husband as well as the wife is stated to fall short of the standard required to establish mental cruelty in terms of Section 13(1) (i-a). In the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 the Court examined the development and evolution of the concept of mental cruelty in matrimonial causes. It is not necessary for a party claiming divorce to prove that the cruel treatment is of such a nature as to cause reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him or her to live with the other party. The classic example of the definition of cruelty in the pre-1976 era is given in the well known decision of this Court in the case of Dastane vs. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326, wherein it is observed that the enquiry has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner as reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. This is no longer the required standard. Now it would be sufficient to show that the conduct of one of the spouses is so abnormal and below the accepted norm that the other spouse could not reasonably be expected to put up with it. Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect; indifference of one spouse to the other may lead to an inference of cruelty. In the case of Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105 the concept of cruelty has been stated as human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or 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 mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could be regarded as cruelty. In the case of V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, the Court observed that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) 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.
Since both the parties made extremely serious allegations, it would be appropriate as the parties were not compelled to live together. The Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that it would be better to give some time to the couple to ponder over the issue, especially keeping in mind the welfare of their daughter. If they manage to reconcile, judicial separation is not required. However, if the parties continued with their adamant attitudes it would be possible for either party to seek dissolution of the marriage. The husband had not challenged the aforesaid decree of the Appellate Court, he was content to wait for one year to seek decree of divorce. Upon the expiry of one year, he had actually filed the necessary proceedings seeking decree of divorce in the Court of District Judge whose proceedings were still pending.
The High Court erred in granting a decree of divorce to the husband. Even if the appeal by the wife to the division bench of High Court had been dismissed, the findings recorded by the Trial Court in her favour would have remained intact. Both the parties had failed to make out a case of divorce against each other.
Decision: The Trial Court inclined to believe the wife, whereas the learned Single Judge of the High court found both the parties at fault. Hence the middle path of judicial separation had been accepted. Therefore, it was not a case where it was necessary for the Division Bench to correct any glaring and serious errors committed by the court below which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. There was no compelling necessity placed before the Division Bench to justify reversal, of the decree of judicial separation. The trial judgement was not upheld and the appeal was allowed.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS