2023 Supreme(Pat) 985

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI and JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.5 of 2018
(25.8.2023)
Nisha Gupta ... Appellant
vs.
Uday Chand Gupta ... Respondent

Headnote:

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – 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 – Section 23 confers on Court power to pass a decree if it is "satisfied" on matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of its sub-section of (1) – Considering that proceedings under the Act are essentially of a civil nature, word "satisfied" must mean "satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities" and not "satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt" – Section 23 does not alter standard of proof in civil cases. (Paras 23 and 24)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Divorce – Cruelty by spouse – Acts of a spouse which are calculated to impair integrity of a marital union have a social significance – To marry or not to marry and if so whom, may well be a private affair but freedom to break a matrimonial tie is not – Society has a stake in institution of marriage and erring spouse is treated not as a mere defaulter but as an offender – But this social philosophy, though it may have a bearing on need to have clearest proof of an allegation before it is accepted as a ground for dissolution of a marriage, has no bearing on standard of proof in matrimonial cases – One has to see what are probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as effect on mind of complainant spouse because of acts or omissions of other – Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or mental. (Paras 25 and 27)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce – Cruelty by spouse – Cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional – It is a question of fact and degree – Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account nature of conduct and its effect on complaining spouse – There may, however, be cases where conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal – Then impact or injurious effect on other spouse need not be enquired into or considered – In such cases, cruelty will be established if conduct itself is proved or admitted – 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 – Cruelty alleged may largely depend upon type of life parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions – Judges and Lawyers should not import their own notions of life – New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate conduct complained of – 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 nonviolent – There are two sides to be considered in case of cruelty – From appellant's side, ought this appellant to be called on to endure the conduct – From respondent's side, was this conduct excusable – Court has then to decide whether sum total of reprehensible conduct was cruel. (Paras 33, 34, 39, 47 and 52)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce – Cruelty and desertion by wife – If alleged cruelty committed on behalf of wife was true, it is not explained why Respondent-Plaintiff-husband waited for nine years to file divorce petition on the ground of cruelty – This circumstance goes against him – Appellant-Defendant-wife has all along maintained that she wants to live with her husband and she always welcomed him whenever he comes home and she has never refused cohabitation – Threat to exercise legal right cannot be held to be cruelty – No instance has been proved by Respondent-Plaintiff-husband which may be construed as cruelty – Impugned Judgment set aside. (Paras 66, 68, 69, 72 and 74)