Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 31 (RAJ)

Chanchal Agrawal D/O Shri Mahesh Chandra Bansal v. Vipin Kumar Agrawal S/O Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal

2025-01-06

INDERJEET SINGH, VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife (hereinafter to be referred as “Wife”) against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Dholpur, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Trial Court’), whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1955’)filed on behalf of the wife. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Trial Court stating therein that the marriage between the respondent- husband (hereinafter to be referred as ‘husband’) and wife was solemnized on 04.12.2007. It was further stated in the application by the wife that the behaviour of the husband and his family members was not good with her and they have demanded the dowry. It was further stated in the application that she left the husband’s house as her life was in danger and there is no matrimonial relationship with both of them and prayed for granting the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. The husband filed reply to the said application and denied the allegations made by the wife. It is further stated in the reply that the wife has completed her B.Ed course and doing job as teacher in a school and prayed for dismissal of the said application on the basis of pleadings of the parties recorded before the learned Trial Court. 4. The wife in support of his case submitted her own evidence as AW-1. On the other side the husband has produced his own evidence as NAW-1. 5. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 filed by the wife. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2005 passed by the learned Trial Court, the wife has filed the present appeal before this Court. 6. The learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed two issues, which are as under:- 7. None present on behalf of the wife to argue the matter even in the second round. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband submits that the husband and wife both are living separately since 2008 and there is no chance to reunion after a delay of 16 years. None present on behalf of the wife to argue the matter even in the second round. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband submits that the husband and wife both are living separately since 2008 and there is no chance to reunion after a delay of 16 years. Learned counsel further submits that the wife has lodged a false criminal case against her husband with regard to demand of dowry. 9. Heard learned counsel for the husband and perused the material available on record. 10. The point of cruelty has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at length & depth in catena of judgments and in a recent judgment delivered in the matter of Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavita (Civil Appeal No.2012/2013) decided on 26.01.2023, wherein in Paras No.17 and 18, it has been has held as under:- “17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the context where it has been used, which is as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to be seen as a ‘human conduct’ and ‘behavior” in a matrimonial relationship. While dealing in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be physical as well as mental:- “ 46…If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. 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 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. Cruelty can be even unintentional:- …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. 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.” This Court though did ultimately give certain illustrations of mental cruelty. 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.” This Court though did ultimately give certain illustrations of mental cruelty. Some of these are as follows: (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. (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. 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. (emphasis supplied) 18. We have a married couple before us who have barely stayed together as a couple for four years and who have now been living separately for the last 25 years. There is no child out of the wedlock. The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond repair. We have no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act. We therefore hold that in a given case, such as the one at hand, where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 25 years), with multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other. We are also conscious of the fact that a dissolution of this marriage would affect only the two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock.” 11. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Lata Kumari Vs. Om Prakash Mandal (MAT. APP. (F.C.) 92/2019 with CM APPL.13891/2019 & 13893/2019) decided on 16.08.2023, in Paras No.16 and 22, it is held as under:- “16. It is a known fact that the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is the conjugal relationship of which co- habitation forms a very strong basis. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the respondent that the appellant used to go away for a period of 15 days to 30 days at times without informing the respondent/husband and that she also withheld herself from cohabitation. Any denial of cohabitation by other spouse amounts to severe cruelty. This conduct was compounded by appellant’s frequently leaving the matrimonial home. Regular quarrels may be trivial when considered individually, however, collectively, these quarrels on a regular basis can not only disrupt the mental peace but also become a source of mental agony. 22. These assertions have been further buttressed by the allegation of illicit relationship made by the appellant against the respondent. No evidence whatsoever had been led to establish that respondent ever had any illicit relationship. This is almost like a final nail in the matrimonial relationship.” 12. In another judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Anita Vs. Amit Bhardwaj (MAT. APP. (F.C.) 80/2019) decided on 15.09.2023, in Para No.16, it has been held as under:- “16. The very fact that the parties were able to live together barely for ten months and since 23.09.2013, they have been living separately proves that the parties were unable to sustain their matrimonial relationship. For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company and of conjugal relationship, is an act of extreme cruelty.” 13. After gone through the evidence recorded by the learned trial court we have find that the husband has misbehaving with his wife in front of his family members & his relatives and the husband has demanded the dowry, in this regard the wife has lodged a criminal case against her husband. After gone through the evidence recorded by the learned trial court we have find that the husband has misbehaving with his wife in front of his family members & his relatives and the husband has demanded the dowry, in this regard the wife has lodged a criminal case against her husband. We have also considered the fact that the husband and wife both are living separately since 2008 and the wife stayed with the husband for a very few days after her marriage and according to the statement of the husband recorded before the learned Trial Court, the wife has completed her B.Ed course and doing job as teacher in a school, therefore, in our considered view, the misbehaving with the wife by the husband in front of family members amounts to cruelty with the wife and also considering the fact that the husband and wife both are living separately for more than 16 years, therefore, in our considered view, there is no chance of their reunion and asking the husband and wife to live together at this stage after a delay of 16 years would amount to cruelty to both of them. 14. In view of the above discussion, we find that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on issue No.1 is perverse and the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court on issue No.1 is set aside. The wife is entitled for grant of decree of divorce in her favour and her application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 deserves to be allowed on the ground of cruelty. 15. The appeal filed on behalf of the wife is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Application No.48/2011 is set aside. The marriage solemnized between the parties stands dissolved. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly. 16. In that view of the matter, this appeal stand allowed.