Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 721 (KER)

M. D. David v. K. G. Mercy

2013-08-20

ANTONY DOMINIC, P.D.RAJAN

body2013
Judgment : P.D. Rajan, J. 1. M.A.Nos. 696/2007 and 356/2008 are preferred by the husband against the judgment of Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in O.P.Nos.72 of 2005 and 235 of 2005. In Mat. Appeal No.696/2007 his wife is the respondent and in Mat.Appeal No.356/2008, the wife and the children of appellant are respondents 1 to 3. 2. O.P.No.72/2005 was filed by the husband under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act and O.P.No.235/2005 was filed by the wife against the husband and his children for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. 3. In O.P.No.72/2005 the appellant's case was that on 8.10.1999 his first wife died and after that he married the respondent on 13.11.2000 as per the Christian customary rites and that they lived together in the matrimonial house. While so, respondent demanded share in the appellant's property and she quarrelled with his children, born in the first wife. At the time of marriage, respondent had suppressed the fact of removal of her uterus. After retirement from KSEB in the year 1996, appellant was serving as the Secretary of a Church, and during that period, respondent quarrelled with the appellant and threw away the accounts book of the Church and disobeyed him. It was alleged that she always behaved cruelly, filed false complaints before various forums like Women's Commission and Lok Ayuktha and filed criminal cases against him u/s. 498A IPC and in the year 2002 she made an attempt to commit suicide. After that incident, there was a mediation talk and as per the compromise, 3 ½ cents of property and a house was purchased for the residence of the respondent. In spite of it, she was not willing for a divorce and that the appellant is now paying Rs.1000/-per month as maintenance. When he realised that it was not possible to live with the respondent in the matrimonial house due to her cruelty and harassment, he shifted to a rented house and was living there. Hence the petition for divorce. 4. In the Lower Court, respondent filed her objection, and contended that there was no suppression of facts at the time of marriage. According to her, at the time of marriage, appellant agreed to give her one acre of property and a house within three months after the marriage. Hence the petition for divorce. 4. In the Lower Court, respondent filed her objection, and contended that there was no suppression of facts at the time of marriage. According to her, at the time of marriage, appellant agreed to give her one acre of property and a house within three months after the marriage. As per the agreement, 89.4 cents of property had been given to her by virtue of a settlement deed and subsequently appellant cancelled it on 31.10.2003. While residing so, appellant made an attempt to oust her from the house and treated her with cruelty, by disconnecting telephone and electricity connections and also stopped the newspaper and milk supply to her house. On 9.4.2004, the petitioner and his children closed the gate of the matrimonial house and she entered into the house using a ladder and spent four days in the house and the gate was opened with the help of police. 5. Hence she filed O.P.No.235/05 seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents therein from ousting her forcibly from the matrimonial house. Appellant filed written objection in O.P.No.235/05 and contended that permanent prohibitory injunction prayed by the petitioner is not allowable and she has no right to reside in the petition schedule property. He preferred a counter claim in O.P.No.235/05 and contended that as per the agreement, respondent is bound to vacate from the plaint schedule property and he sought for a mandatory and prohibitory injunction. 6. Respondent filed a replication to the counter claim and contended that she never agreed to vacate the plaint schedule property. 7. Both cases (O.P.No.72 of 2005 and O.P.No.235 of 2005) were tried jointly and evidence was recorded in O.P.No.72 of 2005. The evidences consist of the oral testimony of Pws 1 to 4 and RW1 and the documentary evidences consist of Exts.A1 to A36 and Exts.B1 to B4. After detailed examination of the evidence on record, Family Court dismissed O.P.No.72 of 2005 and partly allowed O.P.No.235 of 2005. It is aggrieved by this common judgment of the Family Court, these appeals are preferred. 8. Heard both sides. In Mat Appeal No.696/2007 several incidents of mental cruelty mentioned in the petition were highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant. He contended that by unimpeachable evidence each incident of mental cruelty was proved before the Family Court. It is aggrieved by this common judgment of the Family Court, these appeals are preferred. 8. Heard both sides. In Mat Appeal No.696/2007 several incidents of mental cruelty mentioned in the petition were highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant. He contended that by unimpeachable evidence each incident of mental cruelty was proved before the Family Court. According to him, the documentary evidence showed that from the very beginning of the married life, the wife behaved with utmost cruelty towards the appellant and that was not considered by Family Court. Hence, he prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and prayed to vacate the injunction order. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that specific instances of mental cruelty were not pleaded and proved in the Family Court. According to her, petty incidents and usual wear and tear in a family life, were highlighted as instances of mental cruelty and that when evidence of cruelty is lacking in the petition, it has to be presumed that the appellant failed to prove his case of mental cruelty. The learned counsel contended that after the marriage, appellant used to behave in an indifferent manner, and created several problems in her life and making wrong statements, filed the petition before the Family Court. Hence she prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Cruelty is the ground alleged by the appellant in his case for getting divorce. Before analysing the evidence of cruelty, we shall consider Section 10 of the Divorce Act 1869, which reads as follows: “10. Hence she prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Cruelty is the ground alleged by the appellant in his case for getting divorce. Before analysing the evidence of cruelty, we shall consider Section 10 of the Divorce Act 1869, which reads as follows: “10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent- (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.” Above quoted Section 10 (1) (x) of Divorce Act 1869, after its amendment of 2001, is worded thus: “has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.” 11. 'Cruelty' as a ground for matrimonial relief has been considered in several Indian statutes and the concept of cruelty has undergone periodical changes. No precise definition has been given to the word 'cruelty', which may be either physical or mental, and can be caused by words, gestures or by silence or brutal acts of conduct. Such instances of cruelty can be numerous. Therefore, cruelty is such a conduct which cause danger or an apprehension of danger to life, health, body or mind. The fact that the respondent is selfish, irritable, or inconsiderate will not suffice to attract cruelty. Similarly, mere neglect or want of affection, expression of hatred etc will not be the conducts constituting cruelty. Apex Court in Sobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi [ 1988 (1) SCC 105 ] had the opportunity to examine the concept of cruelty u/s.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was held thus: “It was observed that the term “cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act in the context of human conduct and behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one spouse which adversely affects the other spouse. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act in the context of human conduct and behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one spouse which adversely affects the other spouse. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of degree which is relevant. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the other spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. 36. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the 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. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Mens rea is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment. ” In V. Bhagat v. D.Bhagat [ 1994 (1) SCC 337 ] Apex court had the occasion to consider “mental cruelty” u/s.13(1(ia) of the Act and held thus: “Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment or conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.” In Savitri Pandey v. Premchandra Pandey [ (2002) 2 SCC 73 , the Apex Court held thus in para 6: “6. Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type which endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. In the instant case both the trial Court as well as the High Court have found on facts that the wife had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty attributed to the respondent. Concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also the averments made in the petition and the evidence led in support thereof clearly shows that the allegations, even if held to have been proved, would only show the sensitivity of the appellant with respect to the conduct of the respondent which cannot be termed more than ordinary wear and tear of the family life.” In Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta [ (2002) 5 SCC 706 ] Apex Court defined Cruelty as follows in para (21): “21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1) (i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.” In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur [ (2005) 2 SCC 22 ] the Court observed as under in paragraph 10: “ 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 willful 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 noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his 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 delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a 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. Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , three Judges Bench held thus : "No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental Cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (iv) Mental Cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. 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. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty." In Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit [ (2006) 3 SCC 778 ] the Court held thus in paragraph 31 & 32: “31. It is settled by a catena of decisions that mental cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of the injured appellant such apprehension as is contemplated in the section. It is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, three must be such wilful treatment of the party which caused suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful of injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case. 32. The word 'cruelty' has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the 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.” The Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [ (2006) 4 SCC 558 ] held thus: “Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.” The Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [ (2006) 4 SCC 558 ] held thus: “Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.” In Bhikam Ram v. Satya Devi [AIR 2011 HP 106], held thus: “When the wife files false caes against the husband which are dismissed this also amount to cruelty – The wife has levelled false allegations against the husband and this would amount to cruelty - All these circumstances proved husband being subjected to cruelty - Husband entitled to decree of divorce. xxx xxx xxx 8. Cruelty is not only physical cruelty, it can be mental cruelty. When a wife without any rhyme or reason refuses to cohabit with her husband for more than five years this itself amounts to cruelty. When the wife files false cases against the husband which are dismsised this also amount to cruelty. The wife has levelled false allegations against the husband and this would amount to cruelty. The learned trial Court in may view gravely erred in not taking into consideration all these relevant factors and totally misapplied the legal provisions in holding that the husband had not proved that he had been treated with cruelty. 12................................. Furthermore, she leveled false allegations against the husband. It is on her complaint that the husband had to face criminal proceedings and perusal of the judgment of the Criminal Courts shows that the statement made by the wife was found to be incorrect and therefore, the husband acquitted. 12................................. Furthermore, she leveled false allegations against the husband. It is on her complaint that the husband had to face criminal proceedings and perusal of the judgment of the Criminal Courts shows that the statement made by the wife was found to be incorrect and therefore, the husband acquitted. When the wife files a false complaint against the husband, on the basis of which he has to face criminal proceedings, this is also an act of cruelty.” In G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli [ 2002 (2) SCC 296 ] held thus: “ Having regard to the sanctity and importance of marriages in a community life, the court should consider whether the conduct of the counter petitioner is such that it has become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible, and then only the court can find that there is cruelty on the part of the counter petitioner.” (Threat to commit suicide) Apex Court in Vishwanath S/o Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [2012 KHC 4353] held thus: “'Cruelty' and 'mental cruelty' - Conduct of wife in publicizing in newspapers that her husband was a womaniser and a drunkard, wild allegations about an extramarital relationship, effort to prosecute him in criminal litigation under S.494 and S.498-A IPC, which ultimately resulted in acquittal, caused deep mental pain, agony, suffering and frustration to appellant husband and mental “cruelty” 12. Appellant, who was examined as PW1 in the lower court, deposed that after the marriage, the respondent demanded 1/3 share of his property, she behaved very cruelly and treated him cruelly both mentally and physically. PW1 married the respondent after the death of his first wife, with the consent of his children. When cruelty persisted, he filed Ext.A4 before DYSP, Pala. Subsequently, Ext.A5 agreement was executed and 3 cents of land was purchased and thereafter a building was constructed in that property. Again on 19.8.2004, she filed Ext.A9 FIR under Section 498A against the appellant and his children. Ext.A10 is the copy of the complaint filed before JFCM, Pala and Ext.A11 is the Final Report. If a wife makes false allegations against husband and children, that itself will amount to mental cruelty. She also filed complaint against the appellant before the Women's Commission on 28.1.2005 and Ext.A12 is the notice issued thereunder. Ext.A10 is the copy of the complaint filed before JFCM, Pala and Ext.A11 is the Final Report. If a wife makes false allegations against husband and children, that itself will amount to mental cruelty. She also filed complaint against the appellant before the Women's Commission on 28.1.2005 and Ext.A12 is the notice issued thereunder. She filed another complaint before the Human Rights Commission and Ext.A13 is its summons and yet another complaint in the Lok Adalat, the notice of which is Ext.A14. The respondent as RW1 admitted in her evidence that she had filed all the above petitions in the above Forums and on finding those cases to be false, the petitions were disposed of accordingly. She also made false allegation that the appellant has extra marital relationship with another lady. 13. The next assertion was that RW1 suppressed a material fact at the time of marriage. Before marriage, she sent Ext.B1 letter to the appellant, in which the removal of her uterus was not mentioned. She admitted that she has got only preliminary education. On a perusal of Ext.B1 letter, we found that the alleged fact was subsequently inserted by the respondent and she suppressed that fact from him. She admitted that her uterus was removed before marriage and this is a material fact which should have been disclosed to the appellant. Evidence also proved that in the year 2004, a prayer function was conducted at the appellant's house and that PW4 and other guests had participated in that function. After prayers, when all participants were invited for taking food, the respondent came down and abused all guests who had assembled for prayer and on hearing this, they left the house without taking food. This incident caused much mental agony to the appellant and the guests. 14. In our view, the attempt made by the wife to commit suicide and her threat 'to commit suicide', will also amount to cruelty. During cross examination of the respondent, she admitted that she made an attempt to commit suicide in the terrace of her house on one occasion. In Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane [ AIR 1975 SC 1534 ] apex Court held that the threat given by the wife that she would commit suicide amounted to cruelty. During cross examination of the respondent, she admitted that she made an attempt to commit suicide in the terrace of her house on one occasion. In Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane [ AIR 1975 SC 1534 ] apex Court held that the threat given by the wife that she would commit suicide amounted to cruelty. High Court of Delhi in Smt. Savitri Balachandran v. Mulchand Balchandani [AIR 1987 Delhi 52] held thus “threat given by the wife that she would commit suicide amounted to cruelty to the husband.” RW1 had no direct knowledge with regard to the allegation and his hearsay evidence is not admissible. It has come out in evidence that the appellant had assigned 89 cents of land to the respondent and that was cancelled later due to her conduct. After this, he gave 3 ½ cents of property and constructed a building therein. 15. Analysing the oral and documentary evidence and various incidents highlighted, it is clear that the respondent treated the appellant cruelly and due to this, he left her company and was living in a rented building. The respondent filed repeated petitions before various Forums and those were found to be false and were disposed of after enquiry. Filing false petitions before Women's Commission, Lokayuktha and State Human Rights Commission against the husband also amounts to instances of mental cruelty. Moreover, prosecuting husband on the basis of false and frivolous allegations amounts to mental cruelty. She also made false allegation that the appellant has extra marital relationship with another lady. She suppressed the fact that her uterus was removed before marriage, which is a material fact, that should have been disclosed by the wife to the husband. The above acts and conducts created great disappointment, frustration in the mind of the appellant for a long period which resulted in great mental agony and pain. The abusive and humiliating treatment made the life of the husband miserable. The above conduct cannot be called as mere wear and tear in a normal married life. Her conduct resulted in the deterioration of the marital life, which was due to her sadistic pleasure. She always behaved cruelly and threatened that she will file criminal cases against the appellant. The abusive and humiliating treatment made the life of the husband miserable. The above conduct cannot be called as mere wear and tear in a normal married life. Her conduct resulted in the deterioration of the marital life, which was due to her sadistic pleasure. She always behaved cruelly and threatened that she will file criminal cases against the appellant. Considering the various incidents, we are of the view that the mental cruelty towards the husband was proved, which is a good ground for granting a divorce on that ground itself. 16. It is clear from the evidence of the respondent that she is residing in the house of the appellant for a long time ousting the husband and her children. The Family Court, at the time of dismissing the divorce petition, granted a prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant and his children from ousting the respondent from the matrimonial house. The evidence available in this Court shows that the appellant and his children are residing in a rented house. They are holding the title and possession over the property. When the marital relationship between the appellant and the respondent comes to an end by a divorce, the respondent is not entitled to get prohibitory injunction against the appellant. Therefore, the prohibitory injunction passed by the Family Court is liable to be set aside. In the result, both Mat. Appeal Nos.696/2007 and 356/2008 are disposed of as follows: 1) Mat. Appeal No.696/2007 is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 13.11.2000 in O.P.No.72/2005 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Divorce Act,1869. 2) The prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant and his children from sending the wife out of the house in the petition schedule property in O.P.No.235/05 is hereby set aside. 3) In the circumstances the counter claim in O.P.235 of 2005 put forward by the appellant is allowed. The wife is liable to vacate the petition schedule property as per the agreement dated 25.1.2003. A mandatory and prohibitory injunction is granted as prayed for by the respondents in O.P.No.235/2005. There is no order as to costs.