Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order passed by the Judge, Family Court, wherein the Court has dissolved the marriage between the parties under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the division bench of Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh, JJ. upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Court below. However, as to the grant of permanent alimony, the Court said that the Court below has not made any consideration. Accordingly, the Court fixed the permanent alimony at Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid within three months of the date of this order.
Background:
Marriage between the parties was solemnized in 1989, and a child was born to the parties in 1991. Parties first separated after a few years of marriage. Upon a settlement first reached in 1999, they cohabited for some time. Again, they separated on 11-11-1999. Yet another settlement was reached between them, and they cohabited for some more time from 21-03-2001. However, their relationship fell apart again. They have remained separated since then.
A suit was instituted by the husband for dissolution of marriage. It was dismissed as withdrawn in 1995 due to the settlement reached between parties at that time. Later the husband instituted another proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights, with respect to those proceedings, which was also withdrawn occasioned by the stand taken by the wife in parallel proceedings instituted under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. There, she expressed wilful desire to not cohabit with the respondent.
The husband alleged, from the very beginning – the wife had offered cruel behavior towards the husband and his family members. Occasioned by that, his mother committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that cruelty is not defined by the statute. Thus, after referring to various Supreme Court decisions, the Court said that “subjective and inherently varied, individual human behavior in the context of matrimonial relationship may be construed as cruelty to one’s spouse, depending on facts of each case and its proven effect on the other spouse”.
The Court said that the complete denial of company to one’s spouse, without any justifiable reason, may itself amount to cruelty. It is not cohabitation on physical intimacy that may dictate the definition of cruelty. Any person who enters matrimonial relationship, does undertake a social and personal obligation to enjoy and share his / her company with their chosen spouse. A spouse who is out of choice completely deprives the other of his / her company, for no rhyme or reason may be seen to have committed cruelty when that conduct is seen through the eyes of other spouse.
The Court remarked that the death of the spirit and soul of a Hindu marriage may constitute cruelty to the spouse who may be thus left alone devoid of not only physical company completely deprived of company of their spouse, at all planes of human existence.
The Court said that, in the present case, the wife has offered consistent conduct, depriving the husband of her company. She stated in the collateral proceedings that she did not intend to revive her matrimonial relationship with him. Thus, though desertion was not pleaded as a ground seeking divorce, it also cannot be said that the wife had any desire to cohabit with the husband. The wife never wished to revive her matrimonial relationship, and she deprived her marriage and her spouse of any opportunity to share company. That conduct is seen to have been committed and retained over 23 years, without any reason or circumstances leading to it.
Thus, the Court upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Court below. However, as to the grant of permanent alimony, the Court said that the Court below has not made any consideration. The Court added that there is no exceptional circumstance proven by the husband to deprive the wife of minimal amount for the sustenance of her life and liberty with minimal dignity while keeping in mind, the status of the wife as a homemaker with no independent source of income. Accordingly, the Court fixed the permanent alimony at Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid within three months of the date of this order. The Court clarified that if the amount is not paid within the time contemplated by this Court, the same will attract 8% interest from the date of expiry of three months or from the date of knowledge of this order, till the date of actual payment.
[Abhilasha Shroti v. Rajendra Prasad Shroti, 2024 SCC OnLine All 4390, decided on 06-08-2024]