AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J
The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.12.2004, passed by the Ld. Addl. Distirct Judge (Ad-hoc),
Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. Court below'), whereby, the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13-1 (1-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed.
A few facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as narrated in the petition filed by the appellant-husband before the Ld. Court below, may be
noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14th October, 1991, as per Hindu rites and customs at Faridabad. Out of the said
wedlock two sons were born. The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife always remained under the influence of her mother, who would
unnecessarily and continuously interfere in their married life to the extent that at the behest of her mother, the respondent-wife would not even let the
appellant-husband give any financial help to his parents. The respondent-wife would frequently pick up quarrels and would not even hesitate to use
abusive and foul language against him and his parents in the presence of their children. The parents of the respondent-wife shifted to Noida in the year
1996 and she, thereafter, started pressurizing the appellant-husband to shift to Delhi or Noida after leaving his job at Hyderabad. Since the appellant-
husband was reluctant to do that, the behaviour of the respondent-wife worsened leading to frequent fights between them, which had a bad effect on
the children. In February, 2000, the appellant-husband got a job in USA and moved there. The appellant-husband requested the respondent-wife to
stay with his parents till such time, she joined him in USA but she refused, and chose to stay with her parents. On reaching USA, her behaviour
continued to be the same and just after 9 months, she along with their children and valuables etc. returned to India on 16.01.2002 without the consent
of the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife did not let the children meet the appellant-husband when he came to India in January, 2003. Rather, the
respondent-wife demanded a huge amount of money every month from the appellant-husband. The appellant-husband made earnest efforts to salvage
the marriage. In September, 2003, he sought the intervention of the respondent-wife's parents but they threatened to get him and his family implicated
in criminal cases. Left with no other alternative, the appellant-husband sought for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife by filing the
petition under Section 13-1 (1-a) of the Act.
During the proceedings before the Ld. Court below, the respondent-wife was proceeded against ex-parte. In support of his contentions, the appellant-
husband examined his father as PW-1 and himself stepped into the witness box as PW-2.
The Ld. Court below on appraisal of the evidence led before it dismissed the petition of the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage under
Section 13-1 (1-a) of the Act, holding that the ground of desertion and cruelty could not be proved.
During the pendency of the appellate proceedings, the respondent-wife put in appearance and vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant-
husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 13-1 (1-a) of the Act. She also refuted and emphatically denied all the allegations of the appellant-
husband made in the said petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the evidence and other material on record thoroughly.
It is worthwhile to notice that during the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, persistent efforts were made by this Court as well as the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. However, the same failed to
yield any positive result and ended in a stalemate.
Adverting to the facts of the case, the circumstances of cruelty as alleged by the appellant-husband would have to be inferred from the facts as
disclosed in his averments as well as from the evidence led before the Ld. Court below. In brief, the appellant-husband's case is that the respondent-
wife from the very beginning of their marriage would misbehave and ill-treat not only him but also his parents in a cruel and harsh manner at the
instigation of her parents, both during their stay in India as well as during her 9 months of stay in USA with the appellant-husband. He alleged that the
respondent-wife was guilty of not discharging her matrimonial obligations and duties towards him. The appellant-husband also alleged that she
prevented him from rendering any financial help to his parents and preferred to live with her parents instead of his parents when he was away to the
USA.
The points which, therefore, arise for determination before us are as under:-
Whether the respondent-wife treated the appellant-husband in a manner which could be said to fall within the ambit of “cruelty†so as to attract
Section 13(1)(1a) of the Act ?
Whether the respondent-wife had deserted the appellant-husband without any sufficient cause ?
On the face of it, the allegations of cruelty and misbehavior levelled against the respondent-wife are not only vague in nature, but cannot be said to be
so grave and serious which would constitute a ground for dissolution of their marriage under the Act. It is not easy to conceptualise what would
constitute 'cruelty', but the accepted legal meaning of cruelty would be gross conduct of such magnitude which would put the life and health, both
physical and mental of the other spouse in peril or give rise to a reasonable apprehension of the same. A perusal of the evidence as well as all other
material reveals that the appellant-husband has failed to refer to any particular incident much less specific date to show that the wife had misbehaved
with him and his parents or inflicted such immeasurable agony on them so as to compel him to resort to the extreme step of seeking dissolution of
marriage under Section 13 of the Act. The substratum of allegations levelled against the respondent-wife is that she acted and misbehaved at the
behest and instigation of her parents and did not take care of the appellant-husband's parents. It is not his case that there were no conjugal relations
between them when they were in India and later on in USA. It is also admitted that two sons were born out of the wedlock. After rummaging through
the entire length and breath of the evidence led before the Ld. Court below, no unjustifiable and unwarranted conduct on the part of the wife could be
pointed out by the husband which could be said to have caused him so much of distress so as to destroy his peace of mind and make it impossible for
him to live with the respondent-wife.
In every marriage trivial and routine differences do occur, which no doubt can be irritating and annoying, but under no circumstances would constitute
'cruelty'. The vague and bald allegations of misbehavior against the respondent-wife have not been substantiated by any shred of evidence except for
his and his father's PW-1/Bhagwan Dass's, testimony who naturally parroted the events as disclosed by the son i.e. the appellant-husband, alleging
that the respondent-wife did not take care of them and acted at the behest of her parents.
Though it was very strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-husband that he made earnest efforts to salvage their marriage but the
least that the appellant-husband could have done in support thereof was to substantiate the same by way of some documentary evidence in the form
of any correspondence etc. which may have taken place between them after her return from USA along with their children in the year 2002. It is not
even the case of the appellant-husband that he ever filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights to bring the respondent-
wife back to the conjugal fold.
It has come in the deposition of both the appellant and his father that the respondent chose not to live with them and would visit her in-laws
occasionally for a couple of hours only. The above behaviour of the respondent-wife is not such as would amount to cruelty. It was the case of the
appellant-husband that the respondent-wife and her parents would threaten to implicate him and his family in false criminal cases but nothing has been
brought on record by the appellant-husband to suggest or show even remotely if ever any cases were filed against them or any complaint was made to
the police. It goes without saying that had there been so much of interference by the parents of the respondent-wife as alleged or if her intention was
not to return to the conjugal fold, there was nothing which prevented her or her parents from dragging the appellant-husband and his family to litigation
and make the atmosphere acrimonious. We have no hesitation in concluding that in the instant case petty quibbles and differences between the parties
have been unnecessarily magnified and blown out of proportion by the appellant-husband.
As far as the respondent-wife deserting the appellant-husband without any sufficient cause is concerned, as per the appellant-husband himself, the
respondent-wife left his company on 16.01.2002. Hence, the essential ingredient to attract the dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(1-b) on the
ground of 'desertion' is not made out. The petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed on 08th October, 2003 i.e. within two years of the alleged
date of desertion.
In the light of above, we feel that no ground for interference is warranted in the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2004. Consequently, the appeal
stands dismissed.