Bombay High Court: The present appeal was filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) against the judgment and decree passed in a case filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, and decree was passed for dissolution of their marriage. The said decree was challenged unsuccessfully and hence, the present appeal was preferred. A Single Judge Bench of R.M. Joshi, J., opined that the wife’s act of threatening her husband and his family members that she would send them to jail by committing suicide and thereafter, attempting it, would amount to cruelty, and it was a ground for divorce.
Background
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15-4-2009 and the husband submitted that after their marriage, the appellant-wife’s parents frequently visited the matrimonial home and used to cause interference in their marital life. On 17-10-2010, his wife without any intimation left the matrimonial home and went to her parents’ home and after few days, he went to wife’s parental house but was insulted there. It was stated that his and his family members’ visit to wife’s parental house resulted in their insult. There was even a false allegation against his father of outraging his wife’s modesty. It was further stated that his wife used to give threats of committing suicide and that she would send her husband and his family members to jail. Thus, the husband claimed that cruelty was committed by his wife.
The wife resisted the claim and alleged that her husband’s father was addicted to liquor and used to abuse her and rush towards her to beat her and thus, denied having caused any cruelty to the husband. The husband stated that when the cross-examination was sought to be done in respect of attempted suicide by wife, she appeared before the Court by applying Mehandi on her hand to suppress the evidence of attempted suicide.
The Trial Court held that the wife meted out cruel treatment to the husband and it was sufficient to entitle him to seek a decree of divorce. Thereafter, the wife challenged the said judgment, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, and it confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that under Section 100 of CPC, it was not open for this Court to reassess the evidence to record independent finding of fact. The Court stated that it was however open for the wife to satisfy this Court that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below were inconsistent with the evidence on record and hence perverse.
The Court opined that the perusal of evidence of the husband, his father and one more witness, i.e., his father’s friend sufficiently demonstrated that the husband’s contention was duly proved by leading cogent evidence. The Court also opined that the wife was unable to give any explanation for making allegation against the husband’s father without making any complaint to the police.
The Court stated that the husband had not only alleged that his wife used to threaten him and his family members that she would send them to jail by committing suicide but infact it was alleged that an attempt was made to commit suicide. The Court opined that such an act on the part of the spouse would amount to cruelty, and it was a ground for a decree of divorce.
The Court held that perusal of the evidence on record showed that the findings of the Trial Court for granting dissolution of marriage confirmed by the First Appellate Court were consistent with the same. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal and opined that there was no perversity in the findings to cause any interference.
[X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 679, decided on 20-2-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: M. P. Tripathi, Advocate holding for N. B. Khandare, Advocate for Appellant.
For the Respondent: Kshitij Surve, Advocate holding for Hemant Surve, Advocate for the Respondent.
