AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,CJ
On 05/06/2012 the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce alleging mental cruelty
committed against him by the respondent.
He pleaded that the marriage between the couple was solemnized on 06/12/1989 as per Hindu custom at Jaipur. Two children, a son named Yash,
aged 20 years and a daughter named Priya, aged 14 years when the petition was filed were born to the couple.
He pleaded that he was carrying on the business in Stones in Jaipur and his work required him to visit London. His wife used to accompany him
during business tours. He was maintaining a residence at Jaipur and also at London.
Setting the scene for the cause of action he pleaded that for the last five years the attitude of his wife had turned hostile. She started quarreling with
him, on trivial issues. Since last five years his wife started checking his e-mails as also the mobile phone with a suspicion concerning which females he
was meeting. That for the last five years his wife was pressurizing him not to keep any female staff in the office. That he should not do business with
a person who has employed female staff. Whenever he would go to India and return to London she would insist to be with him. That due to aforesaid
suspicious attitude of the respondent she would keep him under constant eyes, which caused mental trauma to him and thus constituted mental cruelty.
Expanding upon aforesaid pleadings, appellant further pleaded that when he was in office his wife would constantly ring him at regular intervals to
enquire where he was. She would quizzing in whose company he was sitting. She would make enquiry from the office staff whether any female
employee was employed. She would ask whether the business associate of the appellant had visited appellant’s office with a female. Her attitude
was of a kind which suggested that she desired to be in the physical presence of the appellant where ever he went and this was not due to love but on
account of the suspicious nature which the respondent developed since the last five years. He pleaded that during this last five years, the respondent
pressurized him to break family relations with his parents, brother and sister. That w.e.f. 20/02/2011 the respondent has started residing separately.
In the written statement filed the respondent admitted the factum of marriage, birth of the children, business in Stones carried on by the appellant,
the appellant maintaining residence in London and in Jaipur. She denied the allegations that she ever quarreled with the appellant. She denied that she
was of a suspicious nature. She denied that she ever suspected the appellant concerning his interaction with females. She denied having checked the
appellant’s mobile phone or computer to access communication made by him with other people. She pleaded that the allegations in the petition
seeking divorce are belied from the fact that during course of his business the appellant had been interacting with female and had employed female
employees. She named one Nancy, Jill, Einav Raam, Denise, Danielle, Padmini and Rashmi as the ones whose names she knew being either employed
by her husband or dealing with in connection with his business. She pleaded that she never raised any objection. She denied that she ever pressurized
her husband to break social contact with his parents, brother and sister. Refuting the averments made in paragraph 16 of the petition seeking divorce
filed by the appellant in which he pleaded that he had not filed any petition earlier in any court seeking annulment of the marriage, she pleaded that
alleging acts of physical violence, verbal abuses etc. she had filed a petition seeking divorce in the court of Family Division of High Court of Justice,
Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, Country Court but she was not actively pursuing the same.
The appellant did not file a replication to the written statement filed by the respondent.
On 29/12/2012 the respondent filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure pleading that the proceedings in the petition
seeking divorce filed by the appellant be stayed because she had instituted a prior petition seeking dissolution of the marriage in the court of competent
jurisdiction in England. The said application was dismissed on 01/07/2013. Relevant would it be to highlight that the respondent filed a copy of the
petition seeking annulment of the marriage between her and the appellant in which she pleaded that whenever there was a disagreement between the
parties the appellant would verbally abuses her and sometimes would even hit her. She pleaded specific dates when, as per her, the appellant became
abusive and physically assaulted her by either grabbing her throat or pushing her in the house.
Needless to state on the pleadings of the parties the principal issue which arose for adjudication was : Whether the respondent had inflicted mental
cruelty upon the appellant entitling him to a decree of divorce?
The appellant examined himself as PW1 and deposed facts in sync with what he pleaded in the petition seeking divorce.
Relevant it to be noted that during cross-examination he admitted that between the year 2006 till year 2011 he had not employed any female
employee in his office.
Appellant examined his friend Mahindra Kumar as PW2, who deposed that he was a childhood friend of the appellant and that in October 2006
along with his wife he visited the appellant and the respondent in London where they had the good time. One day appellant took him to his store in
London. Respondent had also accompanied them. He saw a female employee in the store. As they returned the respondent was full of anger because
she did not like a female employee working in the store of the appellant. Next day they had to go for sight seeing but the appellant and the respondent
did not come out from their room till 2.00 p.m. and he could hear them having a heated discussion. As per him, the respondent was a stubborn and
would ensure that what she was thinking of is given effect to. He learnt in the year 2010-11 that there was a matrimonial dispute between the two. He
counselled them but was unsuccessful. He had visited London in May-June 2011 to counsel the two but both of them remained adamant.
Appellant examined his father Ghanshyam Agrawal as PW3 who deposed that marriage between his son and the respondent was solemnised at
Jaipur on 06/12/1989. He knew the respondent before her marriage. She was a beautiful girl and had an independent mind. He told his son that it was
an inter-caste marriage but his son insisted on the marriage. That two days before marriage his son told him that marriage could be problematic. Since
the respondent had evinced a desire not to marry him. He told his son that arrangements have been made for the marriage and the cards have been
distributed. As per him his son told him that the respondent was suspecting his character. After marriage the respondent resided with him as a
daughter-in-law in their house in Bapu Nagar. Due to attitude of the respondent his wife Sheela got tense. After a year and a half his son and his
daughter-in-law set up their own matrimonial house.
The respondent examined herself as DW1 and stated that after their marriage they shifted in the house of appellant’s parents in Bapu Nagar.
In the year 2005 they shifted to London. When they were in London, her in-laws and other relations from the side of the in-laws used to visit them.
They knew each other three years before they got married and were loving with each other. The appellant was a short tempered person and
sometimes would cross limits of tolerance and become abusive and would even lift his hand at her. But when things would cool he would express
regrets about what he did. She was hopeful that all would end well. Other than the anger of her husband she had no problem with him. Regarding his
business and meeting female customers or keeping female employees she never had an issue.
The respondent examined the son named Yash born to the couple as DW2 who deposed that they shifted to London in the year 2005. His parents
were very nice towards him but his father was of an aggressive nature and sometimes would become abusive. That his parents never had any issue
regarding female employees engaged by his father. He used to visit his grand parents during vacations. He had seen females in the office of his father
but did not remember the names. That his father told him that his mother was suspicious of him, but he could say whether this was correct.
Anchoring the judgment on the admission made by the appellant during cross-examination that he had kept no female employee in his store in
London between the years 2006 till the year 2011 the learned Judge Family Court has held that the said admission destroyed the very foundation of the
case pleaded in the petition seeking divorce i.e. that the attitude of the respondent towards the appellant changed in the last five years on account of
she developing a suspicious nature qua him and due to which she would access his mobile phone and e-mails to see whether he was communicating
with females, that she would create problems for him by insisting that he would not meet any female in his store and shall not do business with any
person who had employed a female or was a female herself. With reference to the testimony of the appellant’s father the learned Judge Family
Court has reinforced the reasoning by highlighting that as per the testimony of appellant’s father suspicious nature of the respondent was told by
the appellant to the father two days prior to the marriage. The same admission has been used as the anchor to discredit the testimony of PW2
Mahindra Kumar who stated in his deposition that during his visit to London either in the year 2005 or 2006 when he and his wife, accompanied by the
appellant and the respondent, visited the appellant’s store, attitude of the respondent turned bitter when she saw a female in the store. That two
remained inside their room till around 2.00 p.m. next day having heated discussions. The reasoning given by the learned Judge Family Court is that if,
as admitted by the appellant, he had kept no female employee in his store for five years preceding the date when he filed a petition seeking divorce
where was the question of respondent becoming anger, what is claimed by the witnesses, on seeing a female employee in the store.
On said reasoning the petition seeking annulment of the marriage has been dismissed.
At the hearing of the appeal, Shri R.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, made no serious attempt to attack the reasons given by
the learned Judge Family Court to disbelieve the appellant. Indeed, the appellant self inflicted a wound at himself when he admitted during cross-
examination that since the last 5-6 years he had not employed any female employee in his London office. As noted above, the setting for the cause of
mental cruelty as pleaded were events five years preceding the date when he filed the petition. The facts pleaded were the suspicious harboured by
the respondent when he interacted with female employees engaged by him in London or meeting female customers or meeting customers who were
accompanied by females. The testimony of appellant’s father also hammered a nail in the coffin inasmuch as, as per the appellant’s father the
respondent’s suspicion qua her husband was told to him by his son two days prior to the date of the marriage. Similarly, where could there be any
occasion for the reasons to throw a tantrum when PW2, a friend of the appellant, during his visit to London went to appellant’s office with his
wife in the company of the appellant and the respondent and upon the respondent seeing a female employee she got annoyed. Needless to state, as
per admission made by the appellant, he had no female employee.
We thus deal with the argument which is worthy to be noted and dealt with made by the learned Senior Counsel. It pertained to the allegation
made by the respondent in the petition seeking divorce filed by her in London. Learned counsel argued that copy of the said petition was filed by the
respondent in the instant case and said pleadings show that as per the respondent the appellant was abusive and used to beat her. Learned counsel
urged that the respondent did not make the good the said assertion made by her and thus, it would be a case where it is established that a wife falsely
alleged that her husband ill treats her and using abusive language beats her.
Now, in the petition seeking divorce, the appellant did not plead that the petition filed by his wife seeking divorce contained false allegations against
him of verbal and physical abusing her and said pleadings caused mental cruelty to him. Assuming when the petition was filed he did not receive a
notice of the divorce petition filed by his wife in London, the appellant took no steps to amend his pleadings when the respondent filed the application
under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to the learned Judge Family Court to stay the proceedings in the petition filed by the
appellant. As noted above, while replying to paragraph 16 of the divorce petition the respondent disclosed that she had filed a petition for divorce
alleging cruelty against her husband in London. The appellant did not file any replication to plead that pleadings in the said divorce petition were false
and caused mental cruelty to him when he learnt about the same. Not only that. While deposing as his witness he did not depose that when he learnt
about the pleadings in the petition seeking divorce filed by his wife he was mentally traumatized.
As regards the respondent, as deposed by her and her son she did not pursue the petition seeking divorce filed by her.
The reason is obvious. The respondent wants to save her marriage and in all probability took a decision not to pursue the petition filed by her
because she thought that it would be worthless to pursue and interest of her children lay in the family being one.
That apart, to constitute mental cruelty the allegations if contained in a written document presented to a competent authority have to be of a kind
which are akin to a defamatory statement. As held in the decision reported as AIR 2013 SC 2176 : K.Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa to constitute
mental cruelty would be making unfounded indecent/defamatory allegations against the spouse or the relatives of the spouse in pleadings/complaints
etc.; filing repeated false complaints in the courts.
Cruelty has not been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. Such a definition is not possible. In a matrimonial relationship cruelty would obviously
mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between spouses which bitters the relationship to such a level that its outbursts are very frequent
and make take the form of violence sometimes as well.
The evidence which we have briefly captured hereinabove, bringing out the salient features, compels us to affirm the impugned judgment declining
the divorce sought by the appellant.
The appeal is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.