Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.H.NASIR, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Jayakrishna Panigrahi - Appellant
Versus
Surekha Panigrahi - Respondent
AAO. No.893/94
Decided On : 07-04-95
Advocates Appeared :
M/s. T. Veerabhadrayya, T.S. Anand, Y. Srinivasa Murthy, Mr. Samineni Kishore
Precedent - Law declared by one High Court not followed in a decision of another High Court - Does not render decision of High Court as good law.
HELD: Wild allegations imputing adulterious conduct on the part of the husband without any basis would constitute mental cruelty. Mental Cruelty in Section 13(1) (ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it difficult 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 was 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 is a case in which the husband (appellant) by his conduct and attitude refused to lead marital life with the wife, soon after her marriage and the wife in an obvious attempt to resist the petition for divorce went on hurling baseless allegations amounting to moral turpitude on the part of husband. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no possibility of retrieving the marriage at this stage and it is a fit case to dissolve the marriage based on the conduct of wife subsequent to the filing of petition causing mental cruelty to the husband.
The assumption that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court is no longer good law because at a letter date, the Division Bench of another High Court had taken a different view, is opposed to the basic tenets of the law of precedent.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a petition (O. P. No. 10 of 1990) filed by the appellant herein in the Court of the Principal Subordinate judge, Visakapatnarn, for passing a decree annuling the marriage between him and the respondent, or in the alternative to pass a decree for dissolving the marriage. 7 he petition having been dismissed, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-husband. The appellant married the respondent on 26-11-1986 at Berhwnpur (Orissa State ). It is the case of the appellant that he did not voluntarily agree for the marriage, and the consent was obtained by force as the parents of the appellant threatened to commit suicide if the alliance was not fixed. It is his further case that even the nuptial night ended with lot of unhappiness and frustration. The appellant states that he made it clear to the respondent-wife in the beginning itself that he was totally opposed to the idea of marriage with her and that he was not getting emotional reaction on seeing her. After few days, the appellant submits that he returned to Visakhapatnam, at which place he is employed in the Port Trust. In march, 1987 the respondent was brought to Visakhapatnam by her relations, and they lived for about six months, but according to the appellant, his marital life was not happy. The appellant also alleged in the petition that a neighbour of his in-laws at Berhampur came to the house of the appellant some time in july, 1987, abused him in filthy language, and thereafter she went to his office and informed one and all that the appellant was having intimacy with several girls and that he was ill-treating his wife. The appellant then submits that he tried to convince the respondent that there was no point in staying at visakhapatnam and the marriage broke down beyond repair and it was desirable to have a divorce with mutual consent. He then states that the respondent initially agreed, and later declined to carry out the promise. He also alleges that on 18-4-1988, the respondent along with her brothers threatened him with dire consequences. According to the appellant from April, 1988 onwards, they never lived together as husband and wife after the respondent left Visakhapatnam sometime in 1988.
( 2 ) THE respondent-wife in her counter admitted the fact that they last resided together in April, 1988. While denying the averments in the petition she alleged that the appellant kept a concubine and neglected her, even though she tried for a re-union. She also alleged that there was a demand of dowry for purchase of a car. She further alleged that the gold, silver and steel articles and furniture worth Rs. 50,000/- were in possession of the appellant, which were given to her in her marriage.
( 3 ) IN the additional counter, the respondent alleged that "the appellant has got sex relations with one M. V. Bharathi, which was lately known to the respondent, and was objected". Itwas further alleged that when she went to the house of the appellant atvisakhapatnam one night, she was not al lowed to stay there and she saw Bharathi staying there.
( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge found that there was no ground to annul the marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the consent of the marriage was obtained by force. On an analysis of the evidence, the correctness of this finding has not been canvassed before us. Coming to the alternative relief sought for by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage, except a bare statement in the concluding para towards the end of the petition that the respondent subjected him to cruelty and that she was also guilty of desertion, the appellant did not make out a casefor dissolution of the marriage on the two grounds mentioned above. On the other hand, it is crystal clear from the averments in the petition itself and the undisputed facts that the appellant himself was not willing to carry on marital l
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
