Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 658 (GAU)

Jilimoni Kalita Das v. Pranab Das

2017-05-25

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant-wife as well as Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel representing the respondent-husband. 2. This Matrimonial Appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 12.06.2014, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati in F.C.(Civil) No. 553/2010 whereby the petition filed by the respondent for dissolving his marriage with the appellant by a decree of divorce was allowed. In so far as permanent alimony is concerned, the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakh to the appellant within a time bound period. Being aggrieved, the appellant-wife has filed the present appeal. 3. Facts to be noticed, the respondent Sri Pranab Das filed petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage with the appellant. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 08.05.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that immediately after their marriage, the appellant used to pick up quarrel over share in his property and also used to intimidate that she will end her life if she is not given a share in the property. This state of affairs continued and every night when the respondent reached home from work, the appellant picked up fights without any reason and used to abuse him by using slang languages. It is also alleged that in the forenoon of 29.07.2008 the appellant called the respondent over phone and made accusation that she had seen him having sex with the wife of one Md. Absher Ali. Again on 23.08.2008 she had abused him by using slang language as ‘kukur’, ‘harami’ and she had also rubbed off her vermilion mark from her forehead and also broke her bangles. On the issue of share in the property, the appellant also tried to kill herself on 14.07.2010 by pouring kerosene on herself. The incident was somehow averted by the respondent by saying that he would transfer all his property in her name. On 30.10.2010 the respondent did not find the appellant at home after returning from work. On her return when she was asked as to her whereabouts, she started abusing the respondent and had also expressed that she can no longer live with him. She threw the keys of the house at his face and left the matrimonial home. On 30.10.2010 the respondent did not find the appellant at home after returning from work. On her return when she was asked as to her whereabouts, she started abusing the respondent and had also expressed that she can no longer live with him. She threw the keys of the house at his face and left the matrimonial home. Since then, the appellant has been living with her parents. According to the respondent, such conduct on the part of the appellant amounted to inflicting cruelty on him. He expressed that there was no chance of reconciliation or for leading a conjugal life with the appellant. 4. The appellant contested the suit. Issues were framed and witnesses were examined from both sides. Generally, the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff was with regard to misbehaviour demonstrated by the appellant and use of uncivilized and abusive language. The evidence of PW1 i.e. the respondent herein is a reiteration of what he has stated in his plaint. The evidence of PW5 Sri Bhuvan Nath is essentially to be noticed. According to him, sometimes he used to visit the respondent’s house for casual work on daily wage basis. He had seen the appellant misbehaving the respondent. He also deposed that the respondent is a lady of rude behaviour who used to address the respondent with slang words. He had also seen the appellant throwing household materials and also using unparliamentary words. In his presence the appellant had also rubbed off the vermilion mark from her forehead, which had shocked him. In cross, he maintained the narration of facts without any digression or any inconsistencies. 5. Evidence adduced by the defence could not cause any dent to the evidence of the prosecution. It is seen that the appellant while giving evidence had deviated from her pleadings with regard to the allegation of the respondent having threatened her to abort the baby in her womb. New allegations were made at the time of adducing evidence which do not find mention in her written statement. A close perusal of the evidence on record clearly goes to show the inherent inconsistencies in the deposition of the defence witnesses. 6. The respondent had pleaded cruelty as the ground for divorce. The expression ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. In the instant case there is no allegation of physical cruelty on the part of the appellant. 6. The respondent had pleaded cruelty as the ground for divorce. The expression ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. In the instant case there is no allegation of physical cruelty on the part of the appellant. What is alleged is mental cruelty and, therefore, it is necessarily a matter of inference that has to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is well settled that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of ‘mental cruelty’. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. What may be cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. However, some instances of human behaviour may be of relevance in dealing with cases of ‘mental cruelty’. For instance, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as it would not make possible for either party to live with the other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. Likewise, frequent rudeness of language, ill-tempered behaviour, indifference and neglect to a degree that it makes the married life of the wronged party intolerable would also amount to ‘mental cruelty’. A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment making it reasonably impracticable to put up with such conduct and to continue to live with the other party on such strained relationship can also amount to mental cruelty. It is true that few instances of hurling abuses cannot amount to cruelty and no marriage can be dissolved on the basis of such instances. What would be required is a sustained course of mental cruelty reaching up to a degree as mentioned above which, however, are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 7. In the instant case the evidence brought on record on behalf of the respondent satisfactorily complies with the illustrations as above, thereby establishing and bringing the allegations within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. The conduct of the appellant, as brought to fore, amounts to mental cruelty on the wronged party i.e. the respondent herein. The appellant in her evidence failed to demolish the plaintiff’s case. The other defence witnesses too could not shake the prosecution case. 8. The conduct of the appellant, as brought to fore, amounts to mental cruelty on the wronged party i.e. the respondent herein. The appellant in her evidence failed to demolish the plaintiff’s case. The other defence witnesses too could not shake the prosecution case. 8. In view of the above, we find no good grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2014 passed by the Family Court in F.C.(Civil) No. 553/2010. While affirming the same, the present appeal stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.