Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 220 (JHR)

Vivek Kumar v. Hanshika Gupta

2024-02-27

DEEPAK ROSHAN, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MUKHOPADHYAY 1. Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2022 (decree signed on 01.08.2022) passed by Shri Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Original Suit No. 249 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of marriage with the respondent has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned court below. 4. The petitioner – husband (appellant herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent – wife (respondent herein also) in which inter-alia it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 23.04.2017 at Hotel Guru Nanak Palace, Hazaribag as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, both started residing at the parental house of the petitioner situated at mohalla Suresh Colony, Hazaribag. No issue was born out of the said wed-lock. It has been stated that after a few days of marriage, the respondent had started committing acrimonious scenes. On 24.04.2017, the respondent had asked about the bank balance of the petitioner and wanted Rs. 15,000/- per month for his own personal expenses. In the morning on 25.04.2017, the respondent had started quarrelling with the petitioner and his parents and did not show the slightest respect to them. She used to remain confined in a room and used to converse for long hours with her friends. The respondent had expressed her disinclination to do household chores and she did not assist her mother-in-law in the kitchen or in the domestic work. It has been stated that after few days of marriage, when the petitioner wanted to attend his duties in the school where he was a teacher, the respondent prevented him as she wanted the petitioner to proceed with her for honeymoon. The respondent used to abuse and humiliate the petitioner and his family members and also refused to have physical relationship with the petitioner. The respondent had a penchant of going to the beauty parlour and though at the instances of the respondent, the mother of the petitioner had given an amount of Rs. The respondent used to abuse and humiliate the petitioner and his family members and also refused to have physical relationship with the petitioner. The respondent had a penchant of going to the beauty parlour and though at the instances of the respondent, the mother of the petitioner had given an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and when after a few days the respondent again demanded money, the mother of the petitioner showed her helplessness at which the respondent threatened to commit suicide and implicate all the family members. The matter was informed to the police through a Sanha being S.D.E. No. 9 of 2017. The respondent had demanded Rs. 10,000/- per month from the petitioner towards her expenses for beauty parlour and phone. It has been stated that on 26.07.2017, the respondent demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner for buying a smart phone and Rs. 20,000/- for buying ornaments. When the petitioner expressed his inability, the respondent became furious and slapped the petitioner in front of his parents and even broke the juicer. A panchayati was also held in the presence of the father and brother of the respondent, but the respondent refused to heed to the directives of the panchayat and instead threatened the petitioner and his family members. The respondent used to frequently call the petitioner on his mobile when the petitioner takes classes and when the petitioner asked her to call later, she abused him and threatened to go to the police station. On 24.08.2017, the mother of the petitioner was slapped and abused when she had expressed her inability to fulfill the demand of Rs. 5,000/- made by the respondent as she only had an amount of Rs. 2,000/- with her. On 24.08.2017 itself the respondent ultimately left her matrimonial house and since then she is residing with her parents. Even after the respondent left her matrimonial house, on 23.08.2017 and 18.09.2017 her relatives had come to the school of the petitioner and had issued threat to the petitioner in the presence of the students of the petitioner. The petitioner having suffered consistent cruelty from the time of his marriage has thus prayed for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. 5. The respondent on being noticed had appeared and filed her written statement in which the allegations levelled against her have been denied. The petitioner having suffered consistent cruelty from the time of his marriage has thus prayed for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. 5. The respondent on being noticed had appeared and filed her written statement in which the allegations levelled against her have been denied. The respondent had always cooperated with her in-laws in her matrimonial house in the domestic chores and had never disrespected them. It has been stated that since after the marriage, the petitioner was spending his time at home, the respondent had expressed her desire to visit some places for honeymoon for which she was humiliated by the petitioner and his family members and the said fact has been twisted by the petitioner in his petition putting the entire blame upon the respondent. The petitioner and his family members in spite of receiving a huge amount from the father of the respondent demanded a further amount of additional dowry and when her father showed her inability to fulfill such demand, she was physically and mentally tortured. It has been stated that the parents and brother of the respondent had come to the matrimonial house of the respondent to resolve the dispute, but it was a futile effort and on 25.08.2017, the respondent was sent to her parental house after keeping her clothes, ornaments and educational certificates with them. The petitioner and his parents refused to take back the respondent till their demand of an Alto car was fulfilled and the respondent had ultimately lodged an FIR being Mahila Bhabhuwa P. S. Case No. 3 of 2019 under Section 498A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication: (i) Whether the suit as framed maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the parties are legally marriage husband and wife? (iii) Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty after marriage by the respondent? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of divorce as prayed for on the ground of cruelty as contained u/s 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief/reliefs? 7. The petitioner has adduced 5 witnesses in support of his case. (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of divorce as prayed for on the ground of cruelty as contained u/s 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief/reliefs? 7. The petitioner has adduced 5 witnesses in support of his case. P.W. 1 – Vivek Kumar is the petitioner who has stated about the solemnization of his marriage with the respondent on 23.04.2017 at Hotel Guru Nanak Palace, Hazaribag as per Hindu rites and customs. In the second day of the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent towards him and his family members underwent a change as it was cruel and disrespectful. On 24.04.2017 in the night, the respondent had asked him about his bank balance and made it clear that she should be given Rs. 15,000/- every month, though the respondent knew that his monthly salary was Rs. 20,000/-. For most of the time, the respondent used to confine herself in a room and used to converse with his friends over phone. She used to wake up at 10:00 A.M. and used to go out of the room only during meals. She never showed any inclination towards domestic chores. He has stated that the respondent used to misbehave with guests who came to meet the newly wedded bride. She expressed her desire to go for honeymoon in spite of being aware of his financial status. The respondent had taken Rs. 2,000/- from his mother for going to a beauty parlour and when after a few days she again demanded Rs. 2,000/-, her mother expressed her inability, at which the respondent gave a threat that if her demand is not fulfilled, she would ensure that he and her family members will go to jail. The respondent always used to issue threat of committing suicide and the conduct of the respondent indeed is a problem in leading a happy marital life. He has stated that on 26.06.2017, the respondent had demanded Rs. 40,000/- from him for purchasing a smart phone and jewellery and when he showed his inability to fulfill such demand, he was slapped by the respondent in presence of his parents. She broke the juicer and started shouting at which neighbours had gathered. A panchayati was held, but the respondent refused to adhere to dictates of the panchayat. 40,000/- from him for purchasing a smart phone and jewellery and when he showed his inability to fulfill such demand, he was slapped by the respondent in presence of his parents. She broke the juicer and started shouting at which neighbours had gathered. A panchayati was held, but the respondent refused to adhere to dictates of the panchayat. She used to call him over phone during school hours and used to extend expletives over phone. He has stated about an incident when the respondent had pushed his mother to the ground when she could give Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent, though the demand of the respondent was for Rs. 5,000/-. On that day itself, the respondent had left her matrimonial house and went to her parents’ place and she took along with her the jewelleries as well as her personal belongings. On 23.08.2017 and 18.09.2017, the relatives of the respondent had come to the school and had extended threat to him. He has stated that on 18.01.2019, the respondent had instituted a criminal case against him, his parents and younger brother being Bhabhuwa P. S. Case No. 3 of 2019 under Section 498A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D. P. Act. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the quarrel between them had started on the first night of the marriage. Even he has taken leave of 8 days for the purposes of his marriage and he also desired to go to honeymoon which however could not be fulfilled. He had on several occasions given money to the respondent, but he had not mentioned about the said fact anywhere. P.W. 2 – Satyadev Singh is acquainted with both the sides and he in his sworn statement has basically reiterated what has been stated by P.W. 1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was a police officer earlier, but now he is working as an agent of Bajaj Allianz. At the time of the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, he had already superannuated from service. He has friendship with the father of the petitioner. He has deposed that his house is situated at a distance of 70-75 yards from the house of the petitioner. Whenever he had visited the house of the petitioner, the respondent had created scenes particularly in his presence. He has friendship with the father of the petitioner. He has deposed that his house is situated at a distance of 70-75 yards from the house of the petitioner. Whenever he had visited the house of the petitioner, the respondent had created scenes particularly in his presence. The father of the petitioner is a retired police inspector and he had the opportunity to work with the father of the petitioner when both were posted together at Sadar Police Station. P.W. 3 – Anjan Kumar is also acquainted with both the sides. His sworn statement is similar to that of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a neighbour of the petitioner and his house is adjacent to the house of the petitioner. The respondent had never abused him. He had never witnessed any incident and the incidents were disclosed to him by the petitioner. P.W. 4 – Baijnath Gupta was the mediator in the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. His statement is similar to the sworn statement of other witnesses. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not noted down the dates of the incidents. When on some days he had gone to the house of the petitioner, he had witnessed the respondent not doing any household work and she was speaking on a mobile inside a room, though he does not remember the date and day of such incident. P.W. 5 – Ram Babu Prasad is the father of the petitioner who in his sworn statement has sought to depict the cruelty committed upon him and his family members by the respondent and his version is similar to that of the other witnesses. In cross-examination, he has deposed that there was no mediator in the marriage of his son. The incident which has been depicted in paragraph 3 of his sworn statement did not occur in his presence. The respondent on being asked had disclosed that she knows to cook food. He had neither recorded nor taken any photograph of the above conduct and behaviour of the respondent. He has deposed that he has not witnessed the incident which had occurred on 24.08.2017. 8. The respondent had examined two witnesses on her behalf. The respondent on being asked had disclosed that she knows to cook food. He had neither recorded nor taken any photograph of the above conduct and behaviour of the respondent. He has deposed that he has not witnessed the incident which had occurred on 24.08.2017. 8. The respondent had examined two witnesses on her behalf. R.W. 1 – Hanshika Gupta is the respondent herself who has stated about her marriage solemnized with the petitioner on 23.04.2017 and from the next date of the marriage, the behaviour of her in-laws towards her was negligent. Her father had given Rs. Ten lac in cash to the side of her in-laws apart from gold jewelleries. She was subjected to torture due to non-fulfillment of the demand of an Alto car. She was not allowed to enter the kitchen during the time she had stayed at her matrimonial house. She was not given proper food and the petitioner on the advice of his parents used to misbehave with her. Her parents were informed who tried to got the issue settled, but after a few days the cruel behaviour of the petitioner towards her started rearing its head. When she started raising objection to such behaviour, the petitioner and her in-laws on 25.08.2017 had forcibly put her in a car and dropped her at her parents’ place and her clothes, jewelleries and educational certificates were kept by them. Efforts were made by her parents to settle the issue, but the petitioner and his parents were adamant regarding their demand of an Alto car. When she received the summons in the present suit, she had lodged an FIR before the Mahila Bhabhuwa Police Station under Section 498A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had stayed at her matrimonial house for four months; from April to August. The demand of an Alto car was made on the next day of marriage. She had not expressed her desire to go on a honeymoon. Since as per the tradition, the marriage is said to be a holy alliance between two individuals, she wants to stay with the petitioner at her matrimonial house. She was asked to stay in one room in her matrimonial house and she was not permitted to come out of the said room. Since as per the tradition, the marriage is said to be a holy alliance between two individuals, she wants to stay with the petitioner at her matrimonial house. She was asked to stay in one room in her matrimonial house and she was not permitted to come out of the said room. R.W. 2 – Parasnath Gupta is the father of the respondent who in his sworn statement has more or less repeated the version of R.W. 1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house for 3-4 months and during her stay at her matrimonial house, it was the parents of the petitioner who used to create trouble for her. The petitioner used to stay at Patna. After 2-3 months of marriage, there was a demand of Rs. Five lac and an Alto car. The petitioner had never come to his house to seek his blessings. The respondent used to stay at her parents’ house. 9. It has been submitted by Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner – appellant that the petitioner has been able to prove the act of cruelty which has been inflicted upon him by the respondent from the next day of marriage itself. The evidence of the witnesses also clearly demonstrates that the respondent was least interested in doing domestic chores, but was inclined to splurge money of the petitioner to fulfill her whimsical tendencies and the resultant effect of such conduct of the respondent led to abuses, humiliation and physical assault. Both the parties are staying separate since 2017 and the marriage between them has become dead. 10. Mr. A. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that most of the allegations levelled against the respondent cannot be termed to be cruelty. It has been submitted that witnesses to various incidents alleged against the respondent have not been examined which has drastically diluted the case of the petitioner against the respondent. In fact, it was the petitioner and his family members who had created torture upon the respondent for non-fulfillment of the demand of an Alto car and which led to institution of an FIR. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the lower court records. 12. In fact, it was the petitioner and his family members who had created torture upon the respondent for non-fulfillment of the demand of an Alto car and which led to institution of an FIR. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the lower court records. 12. The case of the petitioner basically revolves around the various demands made by the respondent and her consequent behaviour when such demands were not fulfilled. She was not interested in doing any household work and kept herself confined in a room while being engaged with her friends over mobile. Allegations of physical assault has also been made, as once the petitioner was slapped while the mother of the petitioner was pushed to the ground. Some of the allegations relate to normal wear and tear of the marital life. Some of the demands purportedly made by the respondent appears to be not illogical as wanting to go on a honeymoon trip with the petitioner after marriage suggests. The desire to go to a beauty parlour and wanting money for such visit would also be a very natural act on the part of the respondent. The act of pushing her mother-in-law for not fulfilling her demand of Rs. 5,000/- for visiting the beauty parlour seems to be a figment of imagination on account of the mother-in-law of the respondent having not been examined. The act of slapping the petitioner by the respondent also seems to be cooked up as the Sanha lodged by the petitioner and his father is not substantive of such fact. The respondent had remained for a period of four months in her matrimonial home and there seems to be no effort to iron out the differences and lead a happy marital life with the respondent. Though, the respondent had indicated his willingness to restore the marital life with the petitioner, but the petitioner seems to be adamant to get the marriage dissolved. Another aspect of the case appears to be the criminal case instituted against the petitioner and his family members by the respondent wherein allegations have been made of demand of an Alto car which finds place in the evidence of the respondent as well. 13. Another aspect of the case appears to be the criminal case instituted against the petitioner and his family members by the respondent wherein allegations have been made of demand of an Alto car which finds place in the evidence of the respondent as well. 13. ‘Cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 though ‘Cruelty’ in general connotation in connection with marital life would mean the conduct of a spouse which would affect the mental and physical well being of the other making togetherness an impossibility. In the case of “A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur” reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 , ‘Cruelty’ has been described as under: “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 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 noted 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. 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. 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. 11. The expression “cruelty” 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. 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 enquiry must begin as to the nature of 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 spouse. 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 v. Madhukar Reddi.) 12. 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”. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi.) 12. 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 peace of the other party.” 14. In the case of “Joydeep Majumdar Vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar” reported in (2021) 3 SCC 742 it has been observed as follows: “10. For considering dissolution of marriage at the instance of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, this Court gave illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even while emphasising that no uniform standard can be laid down and each case will have to be decided on its own facts.” 15. The petitioner has failed to substantiate his contention that the respondent had committed cruelty upon him and though on account of the conduct of the respondent, he received a threat from the respondent and therefore it was impossible for him to stay with the respondent, but the allegations levelled by the petitioner are either baseless or are the result of a normal wear and tear of a marital life. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage between the parties has virtually become dead and there is no chance of resumption of the marital ties, but in absence of any provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 corelating with such submission, we accordingly negate such assertion. 16. Thus, on the basis of what have been discussed above, this appeal does not merit any interference and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 17. Pending I.A., if any are closed.