AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and
decree dated 21.12.2012 passed by District Judge, Chhatarpur in
Hindu Marriage Case No.8-A/2012.
The respondent/husband filed a suit for grant of divorce. He
pleaded that marriage of the respondent with appellant was
solemnized on 23.02.1999 in accordance with Hindu rituals at
Chhatarpur. They were living at Jabalpur and two children namely;
Mimansha and Manas were born from their wedlock on 23.01.2001
and 04.09.2003. The behaviour of the appellant was cruel. She used
to leave the house of the respondent and abuse him. She had
beaten children also. The respondent had taken house at Mother Teresa Colony, Jabalpur and he was living in that house with the
appellant. Inspite of that, appellant left the house and she did not
return back to the matrimonial home. The appellant lodged a report
at Police station Gohalpur on 26.04.2005 against the respondent and
his father. An affidavit was filed on 04.05.2005 to the effect that
appellant and respondent would live peacefully. However, the
appellant-wife did not return to the house of the respondent. She
had illicit relationship with one Mr. Ramesh Patel and he used to visit
the house of the respondent.
Appellant-wife in her written statement denied the pleadings
of the respondent-husband. She denied the fact that she misbehaved
with the respondent and his family members. Contrary to this, she
pleaded that respondent had forced her to leave the matrimonial
home. She also denied the fact that she had any illicit relationship
with any other person including Mr. Ramesh Patel. Appellant filed an
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution
of conjugal rights, it was decreed by the trial Court on 11.11.2008.
Appellant pleaded that demand of dowry was made by the family
members of the respondent and she was forced to lodge complaint
against the respondent and his family members .On the complaint of
appellant, criminal case vide Crime No.23/05 for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 498-A / 34 of IPC and under 3 Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and the case
was pending before the Court of ACJM, Chhatarpur.
Before the trial Court, the respondent examined himself and his
father Pushpendra Nigam, Haricharan Prajapati his neighbor and
Rajendra Prasad Saxena. The appellant examined herself and his
brother Shiv Bhagwan and another person Gorelal Mishra.
After appreciation of evidence, the trial Court disbelieved the
allegations levelled by the respondent that the appellant was living in
adultery and she had illicit relationship with Mr. Ramesh Patel. The
trial Court held that the appellant without any sufficient cause left
the house of the respondent and she was living separately. She filed
criminal case against the respondent and his father hence, she
practiced cruelty and on this ground, the trial Court awarded decreee
of divorce.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of law in
awarding a decree of divorce. The trial Court failed to appreciate the
fact that the appellant filed an application for restitution of conjugal
rights which was decreed. The appellant forced to leave the
matrimonial home. There is no evidence to prove the cruelty against
the appellant hence the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel relied on the following judgments.
(1) Prakash Rao vs. Jyoti MPLJ 2012 (2) (522)
(2) Kanta Raikwar Vs. Kailashchandra Verma, ILR 2009, MP-197.
(3) Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi vs. Preeti Chaturvedi, ILR 2009, MP 3158.
(4) Vishvanath vs. Sarla Agrawal, MPLJ 2012 (4) 265.
(5) Vishnudutt Sharma vs. Manju Sharma, MPLJ 2010 (1), 18.
(6) Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, MPLJ 2006 (3), 1.
Respondent in his evidence deposed the same facts as stated
by him in his evidence. Father of respondent deposed that the
appellant lodged a false complaint against him at Police Station. The
police found the complaint false. Appellant does not want to live with
his son and she was living separately for the last six to seven years.
Both children are living with him.
Another witness (PW-3) Haricharan Prajapati deposed that
children had told me that the appellant used to beat them. I tried to
pursue the appellant to live peacefully and live with her husband,
however, she did not listen to my advise. Another witness Rajendra
Prasad Saxena deposed that appellant left the house without any
reason and in the absence of respondent, one Mr. Ramesh Patel used
to visit the house at Jabalpur.
Appellant in her evidence denied the fact that she left the
house of respondent on her own will. She pleaded that she was
forced to leave the house. The nature of the respondent-husband
was not proper. A demand of dowry was made from her and
respondent and his family members had beaten her hence, she
lodged the report. Same facts have been deposed by Shiv Bhagwan
and another witness Gorelal Mishra.
The apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 in regard to mental cruelty:-
The term "mental cruelty" has been defined in the Black''s
Law Dictionary [8th Edition, 2004] as under:
"Mental Cruelty - As a ground for divorce, one spouse''s course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse."
The concept of cruelty has been summarized in Halsbury''s Laws of England [Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269] as under: "The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant''s capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exits." 42. In 24 American Jurisprudence 2d, the term "mental cruelty" has been defined as under: "Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct toward one''s spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse''s life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse."
In the instant case, our main endeavour would be to define broad parameters of the concept of ''mental cruelty''. Thereafter, we would strive to determine whether the instances of mental cruelty enumerated in this case by the appellant would cumulatively be adequate to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty according to the settled legal position as crystallized by a number of cases of this Court and other Courts.
This Court has had an occasion to examine in detail the position of mental cruelty in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane reported in (1975) 2 SCC 326 at page 337, para 30 observed as under :-
"The enquiry therefore has to be whether the conduct charges as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent."
In the case of Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Haizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr . reported in (1981) 4 SCC 250, this Court stated that the concept of legal cruelty changes according to the changes and advancement of social concept and standards of living. With the advancement of our social conceptions, this feature has obtained legislative recognition, that a second marriage is a sufficient ground for separate residence and maintenance. Moreover, to establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. Continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference on the part of the husband, and an assertion on the part of the husband that the wife is unchaste are all factors which lead to mental or legal cruelty.
In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105, this Court had an occasion to examine the concept of cruelty. The word ''cruelty'' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act . It has been used in Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. 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. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the 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. 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.
In Rajani v. Subramonian AIR 1990 Ker. 1 the Court aptly observed that the concept of cruelty depends upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions, their culture and human values to which they attach importance, judged by standard of modern civilization in the background of the cultural heritage and traditions of our society.
Again, this Court had an occasion to examine in great detail the concept of mental cruelty. In the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337, the Court observed, in para 16 at page 347, as under:
"16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a) 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 or 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 be 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."
This Court aptly observed in Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi reported in (2001) 4 SCC 250, para 14 at pp.258-259, as under:
"Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well-knit, healthy and not a disturbed and porous society. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and role to play in the society, in general. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply any submission of "irretrievably broken marriage" as a straitjacket formula for grant of relief of divorce. This aspect has to be considered in the background of the other facts and circumstances of the case."
In Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73, the Court stated as under: "Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other."
This Court in the case of Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 2 SCC 619 observed as under:
"The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. "Cruelty" for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case." 52. The mental cruelty has also been examined by this Court in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 at pp.716-17 [para 21] which reads as under:
"Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other."
In this case the Court also stated that so many years have elapsed since the spouses parted company. In these circumstances it can be reasonably inferred that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably. 54. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22, the Court observed 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. 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.
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 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.
The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse''s conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent."
This Court in Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit reported in (2006) 3 SCC 778 aptly observed as under:
"37. As to what constitutes the required mental cruelty for the purposes of the said provision, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home.
If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the court perhaps need consider the further question as to whether their continuance or persistence over a period of time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonably conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer."
In Shobha Rani''s case (supra) at pp.108-09, para 5, the Court observed as under:
"5. Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are no generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty." 57. In this case, the Court cautioned the lawyers and judges not to import their own notions of life in dealing with matrimonial problems. The judges should not evaluate the case from their own standards. There may be a generation gap between the judges and the parties. It is always prudent if the judges keep aside their customs and manners in deciding matrimonial cases in particular.
In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Rishikesh Sharma v. Saroj Sharma reported in 2006 (12) Scale 282, this Court observed that the respondent wife was living separately from the year 1981 and the marriage has broken down irretrievably with no possibility of the parties living together again. The Court further observed that it will not be possible for the parties to live together and therefore there was no purpose in compelling both the parties to live together. Therefore the best course was to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce so that the parties who were litigating since 1981 and had lost valuable part of life could live peacefully in remaining part of their life. The Court further observed that her desire to live with her husband at that stage and at that distance of time was not genuine.
This Court observed that under such circumstances, the High Court was not justified in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the appellant who sought divorce from the Court.
"Mental cruelty" is a problem of human behaviour. This human problem unfortunately exists all over the world. Existence of similar problem and its adjudication by different courts of other countries would be of great relevance, therefore, we deem it appropriate to examine similar cases decided by the Courts of other jurisdictions. We must try to derive benefit of wisdom and light received from any quarter."
The apex Court has held that in considering the cases of
cruelty, entire matrimonial relationship has to be considered and if
the act of a party causes apprehension in the mind of another party
that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial
relationship with other, then decree of divorce has to be granted.
In the present case, the trial Curt has analysed the evidence on
record. It is a fact that appellant-wife has been living separately with
her husband for the last twelve years. The respondent-husband published a notice in the news paper and requested the appellant- wife to live with him inspite that, she did not turn back. Two children
have been living with the respondent. The trial Court noted the fact
that children have no affection and intimacy with the appellant. The
witnesses also deposed that the behaviour of the appellant was not
proper with the children. She used to beat them. In our opinion,
after considering all the evidence, the trial Court has rightly held that
the appellant practised cruelty with the respondent and awarded a
decree of divorce.
In this view of the matter and taking into consideration the
principle of law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Samar
Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh [supra] in our opinion, the trial Court has
passed the proper judgment. Consequently, we do not find any merit
in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.