Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Rani Narasimha Sastry - Appellant
Versus
Rani Suneela Rani - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.8871 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.1981 of 2019)
Decided on : 19-11-2019
(a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) - Dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty - Averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement - Constitutes mental cruelty - Claim for divorce can be sustained on such ground. (Para 11)
(b) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) - Cruelty - Prosecution u/s 498A, IPC - Subjecting the husband to trial after which he is acquitted - Cruelty meted out by wife - Valid ground for divorce. (Para 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant has filed O.P. No.109/2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent. The petition was filed basically on two grounds, namely, cruelty as well as mental illness of the respondent.
The petition was dismissed.
The appeal too has been dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant has made out ground of cruelty against his wife.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - Marriage solemnized on 14.08.2005; parties lived together until 17.01.2007 and separated for over 10 years [1000642990002][1000642990003]. - Appellant filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and mental illness; trial court and High Court dismissed petition [1000642990003][1000642990004]. - Respondent filed FIR under Section 498A IPC (CC No.672/2007); appellant acquitted as prosecution failed to prove charges [1000642990005][1000642990009] (!) (!) . - Trial court rejected cruelty ground partly because 498A case was pending at time of judgment [1000642990009]. - Supreme Court held that wife's prosecution under Section 498A IPC, leading to husband's trial and acquittal, constitutes cruelty and valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) [1000642990012][1000642990013]. - Averments and character assassination in written statement can constitute mental cruelty, citing Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate [1000642990010]. - Mental illness ground rejected due to insufficient evidence; respondent working as Sanskrit Lecturer [1000642990008]. - Appeal allowed; decree of divorce granted on ground of cruelty [1000642990013][1000642990015]. - Appellant directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month maintenance for minor daughter, starting December 2019 [1000642990014].
ORDER :
Leave granted.
1. Appellant appeared in-person. The respondent, despite service did not appear. This Court, vide order dated 16.09.2019, appointed Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel, as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondent.
2. We have heard the appellant appearing in-person as well as Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the respondent.
3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 14.08.2005 at Annavaram Sri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana Swamy Temple of East Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. After marriage appellant and respondent lived together until 17.01.2007 and thereafter they have been living separately for more than 10 years.
4. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 05.01.2017 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1279/2011. The appellant has filed O.P. No.109/2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") praying for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent. The petition was filed basically on two grounds, namely, cruelty as well as mental illness of the respondent. In the petition the appellant appeared as PW-1 and one Upadhyayula Viswanadna Sarma has appeared as PW-2. Documents Ext.P1 to P.29 were filed. The respondent was examined as RW-1, one D. Nagabhushan Rao was also examined as RW-2. Documents Ext.R1 to R3 were filed by the respondent. The Trial Court framed following points for determination:
(1) Whether the petitioner established and proved that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty?
(2) Whether the petitioner established and proved that the respondent has been incurable unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermediately from mental disorder?
(3) Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant decree of divorce as prayed by the petitioner?
(4) To what relief?"
5. The Trial Court decided both point no.1 and point no.2 against the appellant and held that appellant failed to prove that he was treated with cruelty by respondent. With regard to second point Trial Court also held that evidence adduced by the appellant was not at all sufficient to come to conclusion that the appellant has established the alleged mental disorder of respondent. Resultantly, petition was dismissed on 05.09.2011 against which the appeal has been filed in the High Court. The appeal too has been dismissed by the High Court on 05.01.2017 against which this appeal has been filed.
6. The appellant appearing in-person submitted that he has made out a case for grant of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty but the Court below erred in law in rejecting the application. He submitted that apart from various other instances, as mentioned in the application as well as in evidence, a case was set up by the appellant that false complaints have been filed by the respondent against the appellant and his family members and criminal cases have also been initiated which fully prove the cruelty on the part of the respondent. He submitted that FIR Criminal No.148/2007 in which charge-sheet No.672 of 2007 was submitted against the appellant and his sister- in-law on the basis of which charge under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was framed and the appellant was tried by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. It is submitted that the Court held the appellant not guilty of offence under Section 498-A IPC and he was acquitted which clearly establishes cruelty at the instance of the respondent.
7. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel, submitted that Court below had rightly rejected the petition of the appellant as he having failed to prove cruelty as well as mental illness of the respondent. Mr. Rana Mukherjee fur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
