2023 Supreme(Pat) 457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Bharat Prasad Gupta S/o Baidyanath Prasad Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Asha Devi D/o Jhulan Prasad Gupta – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 978 of 2018
Decided On : 09-08-2023

Headnote:

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 13 and 23 – Divorce – Matrimonial cases are civil in nature and preponderance of probabilities will be standard of proof in trial of Matrimonial cases under Hindu Marriage Act, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt which is applicable in criminal trials – Within wide range of probabilities Court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where preponderance of probabilities lies – Acts of a spouse which are calculated to impair integrity of a marital union have a social significance – Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental – In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in 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 mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence – It is in this view that one has to consider evidence in matrimonial disputes. (Paras 16 to 21)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce – Cruelty, desertion and mental disorder of wife – Cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional – Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account nature of conduct and its effect on complaining spouse – When a spouse makes complaint about treatment of cruelty by partner in life or relations, Court should not search for standard in life – A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case – Judges and Lawyers should not import their own notions of life – Relief to party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment – 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 meaning of Section 10 of Act. (Paras 25, 26, 27 and 30)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a), (i-b) – Divorce – Cruelty, desertion and mental disorder of wife – Whether husband is cruel to his wife or wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account entire facts and circumstances of given case and not by any pre-determined rigid formula – Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety – It may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words – There is no specific pleading or evidence showing date, place and nature of alleged behavioural misconduct of Respondent wife including attempt to commit suicide – Appellant/Husband has not proved any alleged misconduct of Respondent/Wife which could be considered as something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life – No legal cruelty has been committed by Respondent/Wife to him entitling Appellant-Husband to decree of divorce – Desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from facts and circumstances of each case – If a spouse abandons other spouse in a state of temporary passion, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion – De facto separation may have commenced without necessary animus – Desertion is not a single act complete in itself – It is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under facts and circumstances of each case – It is not Respondent/Wife who has deserted husband but it is other way around. (Paras 39, 47, 48, 52, 54 and 56)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1) – Divorce – Mental disorder of wife – All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree – If mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would survive in law – Life is made up of good times and bad – Bad times can bring with it terrible illnesses and extreme hardships – Partners in a marriage must weather these storms and embrace sunshine with equanimity – Appellant has continuously cohabited with Respondent-Wife for five years since marriage and there is birth of two children out of wedlock, but there is no complaint regarding upbringing of children by alleged schizophrenic wife – Appellant/Husband had failed to prove that Respondent/Wife was suffering from schizophrenia or any mental disorder of any degree entitling the Appellant-Husband to decree of divorce – Family Court has rightly dismissed matrimonial case of appellant seeking divorce – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 60, 64 and 66)