Praveen Kumari Jaitly Vs. Surinder Kumar Jaitly - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/709960
SubjectFamily
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnJan-18-2001
Case NumberF.A.O. No. 296 of 1995
Judge K. Ramamoorthy, J.
Reported inI(2001)DMC308
ActsHindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)
AppellantPraveen Kumari Jaitly
RespondentSurinder Kumar Jaitly
Appellant Advocate M.G. Dhingra, Adv
Respondent Advocate V.M. Issar, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredV. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat
Excerpt:
- - besides this, the respondent examined this father jagdish lal as pw 4. 3. the appellant-wife examined herself as rw 1. 4. the main case of the respondent-wife was that the appellant had complained against the respondent and members of his family to the police and she was treating them in a manner unbecoming of wife of the respondent. it is not necessary to deal with the facts of those cases as the principles are well-settled. in particular what is the kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established ? while answering these questions, it must be kept in mind that the cruelty mentioned in clause (ia) is a ground now for divorce as well as for judicial separation under section 10. another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the act, even after the 1976 (amendment) act, does not permit dissolution of marriage on that ground.k. ramamoorthy, j.1. the wife in a matrimonial action for divorce is the appellant in the appeal challenging the decree for divorce passed by the learned additional district judge on 17.11.1995.2. the husband-respondent filed the application for divorce on the ground that the appellant had been cruel to the respondent and the members of his family and thereforee, he was entitled to decree for divorce. but appellant-wife resisted the petition on diverse grounds. the respondent examined himself as pw 1 and examined joginder singh as pw 2 and smt. santosh chopra as pw 3, who were the neighbours. besides this, the respondent examined this father jagdish lal as pw 4.3. the appellant-wife examined herself as rw 1.4. the main case of the respondent-wife was that the appellant had complained against the respondent and members of his family to the police and she was treating them in a manner unbecoming of wife of the respondent. the act of the appellant in going to the police and treating them in a manner not at all consistent with the department of a daughter-in-law of the house would amount to cruelty within the meaning of section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955. there are certain other allegations by the husband against the appellant and the appellant-wife also had leveled certain allegations against the husband.4. it is common ground that after the marriage on 5.3.1988 the parties had lived together for only 2-1/2 months and the respondent filed the petition for divorce on 14.1.1989. on the materials placed on record, the appellant had been threatening the respondent-husband and the members of his family by taking out criminal proceedings. the learned additional district judge in para 10 had observed :'keeping in view the factors appearing on record namely, short stay of the parties which is of just 2-1/2 months after their marriage in the year 1988, the fact that she had left the matrimonial home in 1988 as a part of a calculated scheme, the fact that she had rushed to police with the initiation of implicating her in-laws in criminal proceedings and had in the meantime, threatened the husband and his family of dire consequences and her taking over of the dowry articles before the police leads to an irresistible conclusion that the symptoms of the marriage of the parties permit of only one treatment and that is the treatment given by their lordships of the apex court to the marriage of v. bhagat and mrs. d. bhagat 1994 rlr 34. this seems to be a fit case to which such a treatment should be given and the court should dissolve the marriage of the parties. i am, thus, inclined to hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case the respondent-wife is proved to have treated the petitioner-husband with an unendurable conduct amounting to matrimonial cruelty and she wants the husband to suffer further cruelty by her insistence of continuing with the marriage which has lost its meaning within two and half months of its existence. in that view of the matter i do not think it would serve any useful purposes to discuss in detail the various authorities cited at the bar by the learned counsels for the parties.'5. the learned counsel for the appellant mr. m.g. dhingra submitted that on the facts and circumstances of this case the conclusion reached by the learned additional district judge that the appellant was guilty of cruelty within the meaning of hindu marriage act, 1955 is not sustainable in law. the learned counsel referred to various rulings which had been considered by the learned additional district judge. the learned counsel submitted that the appellant had to make a complaint to the police in view of the conduct of the respondent-husband and the family members and as a matter of fact but for the provocation by the husband and her in-laws she would not have filed any complaint. thereforee, that cannot be a ground for the husband to say that the wife treated him cruelly within the meaning of hindu marriage act, 1955.6. the learned counsel for the appellant mr. m.g. dhingra submitted that the learned additional district judge had not discussed the oral evidence and thereforee, the judgment cannot be sustained. for this, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the supreme court in smt. swaran lata ghosh v. harendra kumar banerjee and another : [1969]3scr976 . the learned counsel submitted that the learned additional district judge had referred to the judgment of the supreme court reported in v. bhagat v. mrs. d. bhagat : air1994sc710 , which would not apply to the facts of this case and thereforee, according to the learned counsel the learned additional district judge committed an error in relying upon the judgment of the supreme court. the learned counsel further submitted that the husband cannot seek divorce on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down as that is not a ground mentioned in the statute. the learned counsel referred to the judgment of this court in ashok kumar bhatnagar v. smt. shabnam bhatnagar air 1989 delhi 121.7. the learned counsel for the respondent mr. issar submitted that the facts are very clear and they point to the fact that the appellant-wife had treated the husband and her in-laws in a very cruel manner by initiating criminal proceedings against them and on a perusal of the evidence of rw1 itself would show the mental attitude of the appellant at the relevant time. the learned counsel referring to the evidence of pw1, the husband, pw 4 his father, pw 2 and pw 3 the neighbours in the locality, submitted that the only one conclusion is possible and that is that the wife is guilty of cruelty. the learned counsel for the respondent-husband mr. v.m. issar referred to the following rulings:(1) ramesh chander v. smt. savitri 1995 rlr 123.(2) v. bhagat v. mrs. d. bhagat 1994 rlr 34.(3) chanderkala trivedi v. dr. s.p. trivedi 51 (1993) dlt 428 (sc).(4) rajinder bhardwaj v. anita sharma 1993 rlr 88.(5) dr. n.g. dastane v. mrs. s. dastane i : [1975]3scr967 .(6) smt. alka v. dr. r.k. gautam : air1996delhi276 , l.p. a. no. 6 of 1996.(7) smt. chandan agarwal v. mukesh kumar agarwal (1996) dmc 598 (mp high court).(8) rajinder singh v. tara watt 1980 rlr 290.(9) kamni gupta v. mukesh kumar gupta, i (1985) dmc 136 (db) (delhi high court).(10) nathu lal v. nathi lal (1997) dmc 598.(11) rajan vasant ravankar v. mrs. shobha rajan revankar (1995) dmc 532.(12) krishna sarbadhikary v. alok ranjan (1985) dmc 291.(13) parimi mehar seshu v. parimi nageswara sastry, a.a.o. no. 436 of 1992, (1994) mlr 129.(14) suresh kumari chawla v. subhash chander chawla (1983) dmc 359.(15) smt. sudesh verma v. achhar kumar verma 1980 mlr 275.(16) ashwani kumar sehgal v. smt. swantar sehgal (1979) 26 mlr.8. i have perused the rulings. it is not necessary to deal with the facts of those cases as the principles are well-settled.9. i heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and i have perused the petition, written statement filed by the husband and the oral evidence adduced by the parties. the learned additional district judge has considered the evidence adduced by the parties. the submission of mr. dhingra that the learned additional district judge had not considered the evidence cannot at all be accepted. in smt. swaran lata ghosh v. harendra kumar banerjee and another : [1969]3scr976 , what happened was in a contested suit the trial court decreed that claim without delivering judgment. on appeal the high court confirmed the trial court's decision without recording reasons. the supreme court held that there was no proper trial of the defendant's case. thereforee, the reliance on the judgment of this decision by the learned counsel for appellant mr. dhingra is not at all justified.10. the learned counsel for the appellant mr. dhingra submitted, as i had noticed above, the learned additional district judge committed an error in relying on the judgment of the supreme court in v. bhagat v. mrs. d. bhagat air 1994 sc 740. there the husband filed a petition for divorce against the wife on the ground of cruelty and of adultery. the wife in a written statement and in the questions put by her counsel to the husband in the cross-examination made allegations that the petitioner-husband was a mental patient, not a normal person, he required psychiatric treatment to restore his mental health. he was suffering from paranoid disorder and mental hallucination, and he and all the members of his family were a bunch of lunatics. the question was whether the wife could be said to have been cruel to the husband within the meaning of section 13(l)(ia) of the hindu marriage act, 1955. expatiating on the question of what is cruelty, the supreme court said :'if so question, arises what kind of cruel treatment does clause (ia) contemplate? in particular what is the kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established while answering these questions, it must be kept in mind that the cruelty mentioned in clause (ia) is a ground now for divorce as well as for judicial separation under section 10. another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the act, even after the 1976 (amendment) act, does not permit dissolution of marriage on that ground. this circumstance may have to be kept in mind while ascertaining the type of cruelty contemplated by section 13(ia).mental cruelty in section 13(l)(ia) 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. 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 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 the 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.'11. the supreme court took the view that the wife was guilty of cruelty and granted the decree for divorce after withdrawing the case pending in this court to the supreme court. the supreme court observed :'the petition for divorce h.m. case no. 1/86 pending in the delhi high court is withdrawn to the file of this court and is allowed. the marriage between the parties is dissolved. in the circumstances, the allegations leveled by the petitioner against the wife are held 'not proved'. the honour and character of the respondent-wife stands vindicated.'12. the learned additional district judge having regard to the facts and circumstances in the instant case rightly thought that he could adopt the same method to put an end to the disputes between the parties. i am quite unable to accept the criticism leveled against the learned additional district judge by the learned counsel mr. dhingra for the appellant. the learned additional district judge has come to the correct conclusion on facts and it does not call for any interference.13. accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The wife in a matrimonial action for divorce is the appellant in the appeal challenging the decree for divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 17.11.1995.

2. The husband-respondent filed the application for divorce on the ground that the appellant had been cruel to the respondent and the members of his family and thereforee, he was entitled to decree for divorce. But appellant-wife resisted the petition on diverse grounds. The respondent examined himself as PW 1 and examined Joginder Singh as PW 2 and Smt. Santosh Chopra as PW 3, who were the neighbours. Besides this, the respondent examined this father Jagdish Lal as PW 4.

3. The appellant-wife examined herself as RW 1.

4. The main case of the respondent-wife was that the appellant had complained against the respondent and members of his family to the police and she was treating them in a manner unbecoming of wife of the respondent. The act of the appellant in going to the police and treating them in a manner not at all consistent with the department of a daughter-in-law of the house would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There are certain other allegations by the husband against the appellant and the appellant-wife also had leveled certain allegations against the husband.

4. It is common ground that after the marriage on 5.3.1988 the parties had lived together for only 2-1/2 months and the respondent filed the petition for divorce on 14.1.1989. On the materials placed on record, the appellant had been threatening the respondent-husband and the members of his family by taking out criminal proceedings. The learned Additional District Judge in para 10 had observed :

'Keeping in view the factors appearing on record namely, short stay of the parties which is of just 2-1/2 months after their marriage in the year 1988, the fact that she had left the matrimonial home in 1988 as a part of a calculated scheme, the fact that she had rushed to police with the initiation of implicating her in-laws in criminal proceedings and had in the meantime, threatened the husband and his family of dire consequences and her taking over of the dowry articles before the police leads to an irresistible conclusion that the symptoms of the marriage of the parties permit of only one treatment and that is the treatment given by Their Lordships of the Apex Court to the marriage of V. Bhagat and Mrs. D. Bhagat 1994 RLR 34. This seems to be a fit case to which such a treatment should be given and the Court should dissolve the marriage of the parties. I am, thus, inclined to hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case the respondent-wife is proved to have treated the petitioner-husband with an unendurable conduct amounting to matrimonial cruelty and she wants the husband to suffer further cruelty by her insistence of continuing with the marriage which has lost its meaning within two and half months of its existence. In that view of the matter I do not think it would serve any useful purposes to discuss in detail the various authorities cited at the Bar by the learned Counsels for the parties.'

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. M.G. Dhingra submitted that on the facts and circumstances of this case the conclusion reached by the learned Additional District Judge that the appellant was guilty of cruelty within the meaning of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not sustainable in law. The learned Counsel referred to various rulings which had been considered by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Counsel submitted that the appellant had to make a complaint to the police in view of the conduct of the respondent-husband and the family members and as a matter of fact but for the provocation by the husband and her in-laws she would not have filed any complaint. thereforee, that cannot be a ground for the husband to say that the wife treated him cruelly within the meaning of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. M.G. Dhingra submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had not discussed the oral evidence and thereforee, the judgment cannot be sustained. For this, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh v. Harendra Kumar Banerjee and Another : [1969]3SCR976 . The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat : AIR1994SC710 , which would not apply to the facts of this case and thereforee, according to the learned Counsel the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that the husband cannot seek divorce on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down as that is not a ground mentioned in the Statute. The learned Counsel referred to the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar v. Smt. Shabnam Bhatnagar AIR 1989 Delhi 121.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Issar submitted that the facts are very clear and they point to the fact that the appellant-wife had treated the husband and her in-laws in a very cruel manner by initiating criminal proceedings against them and on a perusal of the evidence of RW1 itself would show the mental attitude of the appellant at the relevant time. The learned Counsel referring to the evidence of PW1, the husband, PW 4 his father, PW 2 and PW 3 the neighbours in the locality, submitted that the only one conclusion is possible and that is that the wife is guilty of cruelty. The learned Counsel for the respondent-husband Mr. V.M. Issar referred to the following rulings:

(1) Ramesh Chander v. Smt. Savitri 1995 RLR 123.

(2) V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat 1994 RLR 34.

(3) Chanderkala Trivedi v. Dr. S.P. Trivedi 51 (1993) DLT 428 (SC).

(4) Rajinder Bhardwaj v. Anita Sharma 1993 RLR 88.

(5) Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane I : [1975]3SCR967 .

(6) Smt. Alka v. Dr. R.K. Gautam : AIR1996Delhi276 , L.P. A. No. 6 of 1996.

(7) Smt. Chandan Agarwal v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal (1996) DMC 598 (MP High Court).

(8) Rajinder Singh v. Tara Watt 1980 RLR 290.

(9) Kamni Gupta v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, I (1985) DMC 136 (DB) (Delhi High Court).

(10) Nathu lal v. Nathi Lal (1997) DMC 598.

(11) Rajan Vasant Ravankar v. Mrs. Shobha Rajan Revankar (1995) DMC 532.

(12) Krishna Sarbadhikary v. Alok Ranjan (1985) DMC 291.

(13) Parimi Mehar Seshu v. Parimi Nageswara Sastry, A.A.O. No. 436 of 1992, (1994) MLR 129.

(14) Suresh Kumari Chawla v. Subhash Chander Chawla (1983) DMC 359.

(15) Smt. Sudesh Verma v. Achhar Kumar Verma 1980 MLR 275.

(16) Ashwani Kumar Sehgal v. Smt. Swantar Sehgal (1979) 26 MLR.

8. I have perused the rulings. It is not necessary to deal with the facts of those cases as the principles are well-settled.

9. I heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the petition, written statement filed by the husband and the oral evidence adduced by the parties. The learned Additional District Judge has considered the evidence adduced by the parties. The submission of Mr. Dhingra that the learned Additional District Judge had not considered the evidence cannot at all be accepted. In Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh v. Harendra Kumar Banerjee and Another : [1969]3SCR976 , what happened was in a contested suit the Trial Court decreed that claim without delivering judgment. On appeal the High Court confirmed the Trial Court's decision without recording reasons. The Supreme Court held that there was no proper trial of the defendant's case. thereforee, the reliance on the judgment of this decision by the learned Counsel for appellant Mr. Dhingra is not at all justified.

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Dhingra submitted, as I had noticed above, the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 740. There the husband filed a petition for divorce against the wife on the ground of cruelty and of adultery. The wife in a written statement and in the questions put by her Counsel to the husband in the cross-examination made allegations that the petitioner-husband was a mental patient, not a normal person, he required psychiatric treatment to restore his mental health. He was suffering from paranoid disorder and mental hallucination, and he and all the members of his family were a bunch of lunatics. The question was whether the wife could be said to have been cruel to the husband within the meaning of Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Expatiating on the question of what is cruelty, the Supreme Court said :

'If so question, arises what kind of cruel treatment does Clause (ia) contemplate? In particular what is the kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established While answering these questions, it must be kept in mind that the cruelty mentioned in Clause (ia) is a ground now for divorce as well as for judicial separation under Section 10. Another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Act, even after the 1976 (Amendment) Act, does not permit dissolution of marriage on that ground. This circumstance may have to be kept in mind while ascertaining the type of cruelty contemplated by Section 13(ia).

Mental cruelty in Section 13(l)(ia) 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. 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 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 the 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.'

11. The Supreme Court took the view that the wife was guilty of cruelty and granted the decree for divorce after withdrawing the case pending in this Court to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed :

'The petition for divorce H.M. Case No. 1/86 pending in the Delhi High Court is withdrawn to the file of this Court and is allowed. The marriage between the parties is dissolved. In the circumstances, the allegations leveled by the petitioner against the wife are held 'not proved'. The honour and character of the respondent-wife stands vindicated.'

12. The learned Additional District Judge having regard to the facts and circumstances in the instant case rightly thought that he could adopt the same method to put an end to the disputes between the parties. I am quite unable to accept the criticism leveled against the learned Additional District Judge by the learned Counsel Mr. Dhingra for the appellant. The learned Additional District Judge has come to the correct conclusion on facts and it does not call for any interference.

13. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.