Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 249 (RAJ)

R. S Chauhan v. Sangeeta

2007-02-05

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2007
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The appellant has challenged the Judgment dated 31.03.2000 passed by the Family Court, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellants application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as the Act for short). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were married on 211.1996 according to the Hindu rites and customs. During the wedlock, a daughter was born to respondent-wife. However, according to the appellant while he was posted outside, the respondent left the matrimonial home. Prior to leaving the matrimonial home she threatened the in-laws that she would implicate them in false case. Upon his return, he managed to convince her to come back to the matrimonial home. But, a year later, on 17.01.1998 she left the matrimonial home permanently. During this period of two years of marriage, the appellant claimed, that the respondent has never fulfilled her responsibilities both as a wife and as a daughter-in-law. Initially, she pressurized him to leave his parents and to take another house. She also insisted that although he is posted in the Central Reserve Police Force (henceforth to be referred to as the CRPF for short), he should still take her to the place of his posting. But, because of Government Rules, he was not in a position to take her to the place of his posting. Instead of understanding his difficulties, she would publicly abuse him and would raise hue and cry in the neighborhood. Because she would publicly fight with him and would gather the people around her, the appellant felt ashamed of her behavior. On 26.01.1997, she not only called him names in front of the neighbors, but also physically assaulted him. She threatened that she will commit suicide and will involve the entire family of her in-laws. Between 08.03.1997 and 05.04.1997 when the appellants friends were over at his house, she called him names in front of them which caused him social embarrassment. On 01.04.1997 she accused the appellant of having illicit relationship with other woman. This too caused mental agony to the appellant. Things went from bad to worse when she started accusing her younger brother-in-law (Dewar) of having wrong intentions about her. In order to improve the relationship, the appellant took her to Srinagar, where he was posted, but the things did not improve their either. This too caused mental agony to the appellant. Things went from bad to worse when she started accusing her younger brother-in-law (Dewar) of having wrong intentions about her. In order to improve the relationship, the appellant took her to Srinagar, where he was posted, but the things did not improve their either. He came back to Ajmer on 211.1997 alongwith her. But her endless fights and tentions continued till 17.01.1998 when she left the matrimonial home. Since the appellant could no longer tolerate her cruelties, on 25.07.1998 he filed the petition for seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Act before the Family Court. Instead of submitting her reply to the divorce petition, on 011.1998 the respondent lodged a criminal complaint against the husband and his brother for offence under Sections 323, 341 and 325 of IPC. On 111.1998 i.e. seven days after lodging the criminal complaint she lodged a report against the husband and his family for offences under Sections 406, 354 and 498-A IPC. It was only on 06.01.1999 that she submitted her reply to the divorce petition. In order to substantiate his case the appellant examined three witnesses including himself , in order to support her case, the respondent examined eight witnesses including herself . After hearing both the parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 31.03.2000, as stated above, the learned Family Court dismissed the application for divorce. Hence this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Reashm Bhargava, learned Counsel for the appellant, has narrated the factual matrix as stated above. He has vehemently argued that the constant fights, the constant cursing, the constant tension, created by the respondent does not fall merely under the category of "natural wear and tear" of married life. For, personally the appellant has been assaulted and abused, socially he has been embarrassed, and the family has been neglected and abused by the respondent. These acts certainly tentamount to "mental cruelty" committed by the respondent upon the appellant and his family members. He has further pointed out that in the criminal case for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 the appellant and his brother have been acquitted by the trial Court vide Judgment dated 03.08.2002. These acts certainly tentamount to "mental cruelty" committed by the respondent upon the appellant and his family members. He has further pointed out that in the criminal case for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 the appellant and his brother have been acquitted by the trial Court vide Judgment dated 03.08.2002. In the criminal case for offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 354 IPC the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 406 IPC, his brother under Section 354 IPC and his father under Section 498-A IPC vide Judgment dated 26.06.2003. However, vide order dated 20.09.2003 the appellate Court has acquitted all of them for their respective offences. He has also conceded that a Criminal Revision is pending against the Judgment dated 20.09.2003 before this Court. Lastly, he has argued that the husband and wife have been staying apart from each other for the last nine years. Thus, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is writ large in the case. Hence marriage should be dissolved. In order to support his contentions he has relied upon the cases of A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, 2005 (1) WLC(SC)Civil 237 = 2005(2) SCC 22 , Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, 2006(1) WLC(SC) Civil 690 = 2006(4) SCC 558 and Anagalla Padamlatha vs. A. Sudershan Rao, 2000 (2) Andhra Law Times 15 (DB). 4. On the other hand, Mr. M.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent, has argued that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has validly concluded that the respondent did not cause any cruelty towards the appellant. In fact, her acts and omission merely tentamount to frictions which existed in normal married life. Hence, he has supported the impugned Judgment . 5. We have heard both the learned Counsels and have perused the impugned Judgment . 6. Marriage is a delicate relationship that needs to be protected and promoted by both the spouses. Since the family is a basic unit of the society, the family as a unit needs to be safeguarded from tension and upheaval. A stable marriage requires love, affection, compassion, patience and strong sense of sensitivity. Both the spouses need to show all these qualities in order to give permanence and stability to the marriage. The fast pace of modern life takes it toll on the fragile marriage institution. Both the spouses, therefore, have to enter marriage with a strong sense of maturity. A stable marriage requires love, affection, compassion, patience and strong sense of sensitivity. Both the spouses need to show all these qualities in order to give permanence and stability to the marriage. The fast pace of modern life takes it toll on the fragile marriage institution. Both the spouses, therefore, have to enter marriage with a strong sense of maturity. Marriage never was and never is a bed of roses. It is a demanding relationship which tests the soul of man and woman. Since home is a citadel to which the spouses return every evening, it has to be made a place of peace and solace. In case either of the spouse turn the home into an arena of arguments, and fights and anamocity, then marriage looses its peace and tranquility, its stability and longevity. 7. In a traditional society like ours the roles and functions of husband and wife are well defined. While the wife is supposed to look after the hearth and home, the husband is supposed to earn a living so as to provide the economic foundation to the family. Since the parents still continue to live with the children, a wife has to perform the twin role of being a wife and daughter-in-Land Acquisition Act simultaneously. It is she who provides stability and comfort to the family. Of course, this is not to deny the fact that in a modern society where the woman are beginning to emerge as economically independent, the patterns of family relationship are not changing. But, the present case does not deal with a working couple. Instead, it deals with a couple who is living and following the traditional pattern of family in India. Therefore, while assessing the merits of the case, this Court has to bear in mind the requirement of a traditional Indian family. 8. Both the husband and the wife have a right to expect a certain amount of respect, a certain amount of love and affection from each other. However, in the present case the repeated verbal abuses, the repeated insults, the repeated physical assaults committed by the respondent upon the appellant are bound to shake the foundation of the marriage. No person likes to be publicly humiliated or likes to be subjected to cruel treatment. In the present case the appellant has been cursed, assaulted and verbally abused in front of his friends and neighbors. No person likes to be publicly humiliated or likes to be subjected to cruel treatment. In the present case the appellant has been cursed, assaulted and verbally abused in front of his friends and neighbors. Even the appellants parents have been subjected to verbal abuses. The respondent has failed to perform her household responsibilities of providing food and comfort to the in-laws. She has levelled the allegations of infidelity against her husband and of molestation against her younger brother-in-law. She seems to have lodged criminal complaints against the appellant and his family members only after the divorce petition was filed by the appellant. Prima facie it seems that such steps were taken by her with an ulterior motive. These Acts would certainly tentamount to mental cruelty. Such acts are sufficient to convince the appellant that it is not possible for him to continue the marriage. 9. In the case A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court has dealt in detail with the concept of "cruelty" in matrimonial cases. It held a under : "The expression cruelty has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noticed above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. The expression "cruelty" has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the inquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouses. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi). However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi). To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental piece of the other party. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouses conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. However, insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety; which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence violent or non-violent. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each others fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with man and woman before it, it ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. (See N.G. Dastane (Dr.) vs. S. Dastane)". 10. Even otherwise admittedly both the parties have been living separately for the last nine years. Therefore, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is writ large in the case. In the case of Naveen Kohli (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed : "Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. In the case of Naveen Kohli (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed : "Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. Once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. The Court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavor to reconcile the parties; yet if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be source of greater misery for the parties. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. Public interest demand not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of savage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce Courts are presented with concrete instances of human behaviour as they bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. In view of the fact that the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years and a very large number of aforementioned criminal and civil proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the appellant and some proceedings have been initiated by the appellant against the respondent, the matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name. A marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. To keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to public interest than a dissolution of the marriage bond. Undoubtedly, it is obligation of the Court and all concerned that the marriage status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained, but when the marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage which in fact has ceased to exist. In the instant case, there has been total disappearance of emotional substratum in the marriage. Preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be greater source of misery for the parties not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life. The High Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach". 11. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment dated 31.03.2000 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Ajmer. 12. While allowing the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act we grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-husband and dissolve the marriage solemnized between the parties on 211.1996. There shall be no order as to cost.