Himachal Pradesh High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant-wife under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the HMA’) to set aside the impugned judgment dated 14-08-2019, the Division Bench of Vivek Singh Thakur and Sandeep Sharma*, JJ, opined that cruelty must not only be physical or mental, but it must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life. The Court opined that levelling disgusting accusations of indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship constituted grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, and status of the spouse. Such aspersions definitely amounted to the worst form of insult and cruelty, which itself was sufficient to substantiate cruelty in law. Thus, the Court after considering the entire evidence on record and reasons assigned therein, found no scope to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in favour of the respondent-husband, and upheld the impugned judgment.
Background
In an instant case, the parties got married on 10-05-2005 and on 08-03-2006, one daughter was born from wedlock. Though initially, the parties lived together cordially, but subsequently, on account of certain differences, martial relations between them became sour, It was asserted that the relationship between the appellant-wife and her mother-in-law were not very cordial and as a result, relations between the wife and the husband also became strained. Further, after seven months of the daughter’s birth, the wife joined a job and started residing away from the house and left her daughter with the mother-in-law. The husband stated that the daughter was being looked after by her mother-in-law, but the wife never appreciated her mother-in-law. The husband and his mother reamined under mental tension and stress because of the allegations and the threats levelled by the wufe that she would implicate them in a false criminal case. Once, the wife threatened to consume poison and as such, the mother-in-law filed an FIR at a concerned Police Station.
Further, the wife also started levelling allegations that the husband was having illicit relationship, and as a result, the husband suffered great harassment, mental stress and agony. It was also stated that the wife, parents and the brother made repeated phone calls on the husband’s mobile during office hours and late-night hours to abuse and threaten him. On 24-06-2014, the wife visited the husband’s office and started abusing him in front of other stadd and alleged that he was a womanizer and had caused harassment and mental stress and agony to her.
Since, the marriage between the parties failed irreparably and there was no chance of rapprochement, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, for passing decree of divorce by way of dissolution of marriage.
However, the wife refuted all the allegations and alleged that she was constantly harassed by the husband and her mother-in-law and also, her taking the job was a joint decision of the parties in consultation with her mother-in-law, yet she was repeatedly compelled by the husband and his mother to leave the job. She stated that she was manhandled by the husband and thus, filed a complaint on 23-7-2014, whereafter the matter was compromised between the parties. She further added that the husband misbehaved and demanded dowry after two years of the marriage and also, claimed that the husband had illicit relationship.
Therefore, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led on record, the Family Court, allowed the divorce petition. Thus, the wife filed the present appeal to set aside the order dated 14-8-2019.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court after considering the entire evidence led on record, opined that the husband had sucessfully proved that on account of frivolous allegations of adultery levelled against him, great harassment, mental stress and agony was caused to him. Further, the Court opined that the relationship between the wife, the husband and her mother-in-law were cordial for more than two-three years of marriage, but it subsequently became bitter because of the wife’s job and she also levelled allegation of adultery against her husband, because of which relationship between them was also strained. The Court opined that in the present case, even though the wife alleged that her husband had illicit relationship, but such allegation was never proved in accordance with law. On the contrary, there was overwhelming evidence that the wife visited the husband’s office and levelled allegations of adultery, due to which he suffered humiliation and mental trauma.
The Court opined that “matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship and to maintain such relationship for a long, there is requirement of mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection.” In the present case, the wife had made serious allegations regarding adulterous life of her husband and such false allegation of adultery constituted mental cruelty. The Court relied on Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate (2003) 6 SCC 334 and opined that levelling disgusting accusations of indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship constituted grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status of the spouse. The Court opined that definitely such aspersions amounted to worst form of insult and cruelty, which itself was sufficient to substantiate cruelty in law.
The Court opined that ‘cruelty’ had not been defined in the HMA but it has been used in Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. The Court further opined that cruelty could be mental, physical, intentional, or unintentional and if it was mental, the inquiry 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 Court relied on Manish Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar (2010) 4 SCC 339 and Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476, and opined that intention was not a necessary element in cruelty and the absence of it should not make any difference. The relief to the party could be denied on the ground that there had been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment.
The Court opined that cruelty must not only be physical or mental, but it must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life and the conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and background. In the present case, the wife had levelled serious allegation regarding adulterous life of the husband, but such allegation never came to be proved. The Court noted that immediately after filing of divorce petition, the wife filed an FIR under Section 498A, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the husband and his mother. Furthermore, number of other cases also came to be filed against the respondent husband and his mother, which suggested that from very beginning, that the wife was not interested to live with her mother-in-law and always forced him to take separate accommodation.
The Court after considering the entire evidence on record and reasons assigned therein, found no scope to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court i in the husband’s favour, and upheld the impugned judgment.
[Kamlesh Thakur v. Sushil Thakur, 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1745, decided on 18-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sandeep Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Vivek Sharma and Anubhav Chopra, Advocates.
For the Respondent: G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Meera Devi, Advocate.
