Back
High Court Of Calcutta
G. N. RAY, PABITRA KUMAR BANERJEE
SANTANA BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
SACHINDRA NATH BANERJEE - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 251 Of 1986
Decided On : 09/28/1989
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 13(1)(ia) - CRUELTY - DIVORCE - MENTAL CRUELTY - CONDONATION - SUBSEQUENT ACTS OF CRUELTY - RELIEF - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - CONSIDERATION - APPEAL - AMENDMENT OF PLEADING - REJECTION - JUSTIFICATION - CORROBORATION - NECESSITY - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - CREDIBILITY - FALSE ALLEGATIONS - RELIANCE - CONDONATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - FORGIVENESS - RECONCILIATION - ATTEMPT - FAILURE - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - CONSIDERATION - JUSTIFICATION - SALUTARY PRINCIPLE - SHORTENING COURSE OF LITIGATION - APPEAL - DISMISSAL - STAY - PRAYER - REJECTION.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty by the wife. The wife denied the allegations and alleged cruelty on the part of the husband. The trial court allowed the husband's petition and granted a decree of divorce.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the wife had indulged in making disparaging and insulting remarks against the husband and the members of his family, which caused him great mental pain. The court also found that the wife had made false allegations against the husband, including allegations of engaging anti-socials against her, threatening her with dire consequences, and attempting to get her kidnapped. The court held that these acts amounted to cruelty and that the husband had not condoned them. The court also considered subsequent events, including the wife's false allegations in her written statement and deposition, as evidence of her cruelty. The court dismissed the wife's appeal and upheld the decree of divorce.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife's conduct amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act? 2. Whether the husband had condoned the wife's cruelty? 3. Whether subsequent events could be considered in determining whether a decree of divorce should be granted? 4. Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the husband's amendment of the pleading? 5. Whether corroboration was necessary to prove the husband's allegations of cruelty? 6. Whether the trial court had erred in its appreciation of the evidence? 7. Whether the trial court was justified in relying on the wife's false allegations as evidence of her cruelty? 8. Whether the burden of proof was on the husband to prove that he had not condoned the wife's cruelty? 9. Whether the husband had forgiven the wife's cruelty and started a new conjugal life? 10. Whether the court's attempt at reconciliation was successful? 11. Whether subsequent events could be considered in determining whether to grant a stay of the judgment and decree of the appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the wife's conduct, including making disparaging and insulting remarks against the husband and his family, making false allegations against him, and engaging in other acts that caused him great mental pain, amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The court held that the husband had not condoned the wife's cruelty, as he had not accepted her with a spirit of forgiveness and started a new conjugal life. 3. The court held that subsequent events, including the wife's false allegations in her written statement and deposition, could be considered in determining whether a decree of divorce should be granted, as they constituted cruelty of a grave nature. 4. The court held that the trial court was justified in rejecting the husband's amendment of the pleading, as it was an attempt to introduce a false and concocted story. 5. The court held that corroboration was not necessary to prove the husband's allegations of cruelty, as the wife's own statements and actions provided sufficient evidence. 6. The court held that the trial court had not erred in its appreciation of the evidence, as it had carefully considered the evidence and reached a reasonable conclusion. 7. The court held that it was justified in relying on the wife's false allegations as evidence of her cruelty, as they were made in her written statement and deposition, and were not supported by any credible evidence. 8. The court held that the burden of proof was on the husband to prove that he had not condoned the wife's cruelty, as condonation is a defense to a petition for divorce. 9. The court held that the husband had not forgiven the wife's cruelty and started a new conjugal life, as he had continued to suffer mental pain and had not accepted her with a spirit of forgiveness. 10. The court's attempt at reconciliation was unsuccessful, as the wife refused to accept the husband's forgiveness and start a new conjugal life. 11. The court held that subsequent events could be considered in determining whether to grant a stay of the judgment and decree of the appeal, as they were relevant to the issue of whether the wife's cruelty was of a continuing nature.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the wife's appeal and upheld the decree of divorce. The court also rejected the wife's prayer for a stay of the judgment and decree of the appeal.
Key Points: - The wife’s disparaging remarks and false allegations against husband and family found to constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) (!) - Court held that subsequent events (post-pleading conduct and statements) can be considered in determining cruelty and in shortening litigation (!) (!) - Condonation not established; husband did not forgive or start a new conjugal life; attempts at reconciliation did not equate to condonation (!) (!) - Corroboration of cruelty allegations not strictly necessary; wife’s own statements and conduct provided evidence (!) (!) - Trial court’s rejection of husband’s pleading amendment deemed justified; evidence viewed in totality to assess cruelty (!) (!) - High Court dismissed appeal; upheld decree for divorce on grounds of grave cruelty (!) (!) - Court emphasized that evidence regarding falsity of police complaints and alleged anti-social threats contributed to cruelty finding (!) (!)
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 147 of 1979. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the said Matrimonial Suit for decree for divorce prayed for by the applicant respondent husband Sri Sachindra Nath Benerjee against the appellant wife Sm. Santana Banerjee was allowed.
( 2 ) THE case of the applicant husband was, inter alia, that the parties to the suit were Hindus and were married according to the Hindu rites. But from the very beginning of the marriage, the wife failed and neglected to maintain the proper marital relationship between the parties and in the application the applicant husband gave instances of improper behaviour of the wife for which the husband suffered a great mental torture. It was, inter alia, contended by the husband that the wife was over conscious about her family background and social status of her father and grandfather and she indulged in openly commenting that the husband and his family members were rustic and uncultured. The applicant husband further contended that the wife used to hurl abuse in the name of the cousin brother of the applicant that he was a drunkard and she also used to make reckless and unfounded allegations touching the character of almost all the members in the family of the husband including the cousin brother, own elder brother and other members of the family. The wife was also in the habit of finding fault with other members of the family and according to her assessment every female member of the husband's family was unchaste and every male member of the house was guilty of moral degradation. On account of such reckless abuse by the wife, the life of the petitioner became totally miserable. The husband also alleged that the wife had no intention to live as a house-wife and she used to pose herself most sophisticated society girl and used to comment that she had enough money with which she can maintain a person like his husband's status. It was also alleged that the wife was in the habit of concealing important facts and she never disclosed that she was a Radio Artist or that she got service as a teacher in a School. She had no intention to live in the family house of the husband and she always insisted that the husband should live separately near about the residence of her elder sister and she started teasing and threatening the husband to make the life of the husband miserable and ruin if the husband would not concede to the proposal to stay with her as a dummy husband at a place of her choice. The husband further contended that the wife insisted that the husband should sever all connections with the husband's family and would also allow the wife to do whatever she liked and to mix with the men of her choice as a society girl despite objections made by the husband. The husband also contended that the wife had no intention to consummate the marriage and she refused to sexual relation on the alleged ground that she was not prepared to become a mother at the cost of her youth. The wife also lodged false complaints to the Calcutta Police authorities against the h6sband on various false allegations, but it was ultimately proved that such allegations were false and baseless and the complaint was mala fide and motivated. The husband also stated that he took the wife for a pleasure trip to various places and immediately on return from such tour the wife did not go to the family residence of her husband, but went to her sister's place and denied the husband's right to the society of the wife. It was contended that the aforesaid acts caused great mental pain to the husband and he became totally broken down. The husband alleged that he had not condoned the cruelty on the part of the wife and prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty. It may be noted here that the husband made an application for amendment of the plaint for incorporating the fact that
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
