Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05-04-2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, whereby the application for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) filed by the respondent (‘husband’) for grant of decree of divorce, was allowed, the Division Bench of Rajani Dubey* and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ., stated that a close scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence and admission of wife in her statement made it clear that she regularly visited the Church and in the last 10 years, she had not followed the Hindu religion and also did not take part in Hindu Puja.
The Court stated that the present case was not of a marriage between individuals of two different religions, where a mutual understanding of faith practices would be expected. Here, the husband had argued that his wife repeatedly demeaned his religious beliefs, insulted his gods, and humiliated him. The Court opined that such behaviour from wife, who was expected to be ‘Sahadharmini’ amounted to mental cruelty towards a devout Hindu spouse.
Background
In the present case, the appellant (‘wife’) and the husband were governed by the Hindu religion and marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07-02-2016 at Bilaspur as per Hindu rites and rituals. The husband had filed an application for divorce under HMA against the wife stating that he was residing in Delhi since 2005 and was employed in a private company. He lived in a rented house. Whereas the wife was employed as a teacher and after marriage, she went to Delhi for a few days but by quarrelling over petty matters, she deprived the husband of marital happiness. She abandoned the Hindu religion and adopted Christianity. She also suspected the fidelity of her husband. Further, the wife did not want to live in Delhi whereas the husband was the only son in his family. The wife did not follow the Hindu rituals and threatened the husband to implicate him in a false case.
However, the wife denied all the allegations against her and stated that the husband and his family members used to follow the Christianity and due to which, she got acquainted with him. She did not abandon the traditions of Hindu religion and, she never suspected the fidelity of her husband. Further, she stated that she wanted to live with her husband, but she was tortured by him for demand of dowry. The husband himself abandoned her.
The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence granted the divorce decree in the husband’s favour. Hence, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that it was clear from the husband’s statement that he was a follower of Hindu religion, and all the rituals of Hindu religion were performed in his house. The husband was the elder son of his parents, and he had to perform the festivals and rituals of his house. The wife did not accompany him in any worship or religious programme. She called the Hindu religion hypocrisy and mocked at the same. The husband was saddened by this kind of behaviour and felt ashamed in front of the people of the house and society.
The Court further stated that a scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence and admission of wife in her statement made it clear that she regularly visited the Church and in the last 10 years, she had not followed the Hindu religion and did not take part in Hindu Puja.
The Court referred to Sujatha v. Jose Augustine, 1994 SCC OnLine Kar 397 and Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 and stated that in the present case, it was clear that at the time at the time of marriage, both the parties were of Hindu religion. The Court stated that in Hinduism, the wife is regarded as the “Sahadharmini”, which meant that she shared spiritual duties and righteousness alongside her husband. This concept underscores the wife’s essential role in fulfilling religious obligations, particularly in the performance of rituals, where her presence was indispensable. The idea that a wife was a vital partner in spiritual and religious duties was fundamental to every Hindu household.
The Court stated that the husband had clearly stated that the wife not only refused to perform puja with him but also disrespected Hindu gods, rituals, and the sacred prasad. The husband, being a devout Hindu and the elder son of his family, was obligated to perform several important rituals for himself and the members of his family. The wife, by her own admission, had not engaged in any form of puja for the past 10 years and instead attended church for her prayers.
The Court stated that the present case was not of a marriage between individuals of two different religions, where a mutual understanding of faith practices would be expected. Here, the husband had argued that his wife repeatedly demeaned his religious beliefs, insulted his gods, and humiliated him. The Court opined that such behaviour from wife, who was expected to be ‘Sahadharmini’ amounted to mental cruelty towards a devout Hindu spouse.
Thus, the Court stated that the Trial Court was just, proper and in accordance with the provisions of HMA, and did not call for any interference by this Court and accordingly, dismissed the present appeal.
[A v. B, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 11174, decided on 25-10-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rajani Dubey
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Meenu Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent: B.N. Mishra and Ganesh Ram Burman, Advocates.