SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOUTAM BHADURI, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, JJ.
Smt. Nalini Mishra W/o Surendra Patel – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Kumar Patel S/o Shri B.P. Patel – Respondent
FA(MAT) No.8 of 2020
Decided on : 18-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Shishir Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the definition and assessment of mental cruelty in the context of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing sustained abusive and humiliating treatment, character assassination, and physical and mental assault as forms of mental cruelty.

Headnote:

Cruelty - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act - 13(1)(i-a) - [MENTAL CRUELTY] - [FAMILY LAW] - [Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(i-a)] - The court discussed the definition of mental cruelty as defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh and highlighted instances of human behavior relevant to mental cruelty. The court also referred to the case of Narendra Vs. K. Meena, where the Supreme Court held that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship constitute mental cruelty. The court emphasized sustained abusive and humiliating treatment, character assassination, and physical and mental assault as forms of mental cruelty. The court also considered the impact of the wife's behavior on the husband's reputation and office stature, affirming the finding of mental cruelty by the family Court.

Fact of the Case:

The husband sought divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the wife abused him, stopped him from meeting his parents, made false allegations, and assaulted his sister. The wife denied the allegations and contended that the husband wanted to separate for no valid reason.

Finding of the Court:

The family Court found in favor of the husband, granting the decree of divorce based on evidence of sustained abusive and humiliating treatment, character assassination, and physical and mental assault by the wife, constituting mental cruelty.

Issues: The main issue was whether the husband was treated with cruelty by the wife.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the definition of mental cruelty as established by the Supreme Court and considered instances of sustained abusive and humiliating treatment, character assassination, and physical and mental assault as forms of mental cruelty. The court also emphasized the impact of the wife's behavior on the husband's reputation and office stature.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the finding of mental cruelty by the family Court and granting the decree of divorce in favor of the husband.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

1. The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2019 passed in H.M.A. 677/2017 by the learned family Court, Raipur, whereby the application filed by the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty was allowed. The present appeal is by the wife.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband leveled allegation that the marriage in between the parties solemnized on 31.10.2010 and out of the said wedlock a child was born. Thereafter, with the passage of time, it is alleged that the wife used to spent money as per her own choice and the visit of the husband to his parents was objected & eventually stopped. It is stated whenever he wanted to visit his parents, the wife used to abuse him resulting into stoppage of meeting of the husband with his parents. It was further alleged that without the consent and permission of the husband she went to a place called Belpahad for her business at Mahanadi coalfield for the business of coal shifting and when the husband tried to intervene, he was abused and insulted. The respondent/husband further alleged that the wife used to take away the entire salary of the husband and used to spent in her business and if a query was made about the expenses, it was reciprocated with the abuses. It is alleged that the wife procured 5 vehicles on loan without the consent of the husband and she deliberately stopped to discharge her household responsibilities including taking care of the child. It is stated that even the husband was stopped to attend the marriage of his real brother and the maternal sister of the husband when wanted to visit their place to appear in an examination from outside, the wife alleged illicit relation of the girl with the husband. It was further alleged that the husband is having an illicit relation with an office colleague. In a result, the husband on different occasions made a police report explaining the facts.

3. It is further alleged that at one occasion the wife had surreptitiously stolen away the valuable papers which were kept in the car and the report having been made about such theft, after CCTV footage when it was discovered that the wife had done this, she was arrested in a criminal case. Referring to a particular date, it is stated by the husband that the wife used to abuse and bald allegations were made against the husband and even at a point of time she assaulted the younger sister of the respondent, therefore, on various grounds, the husband sought decree of divorce.

4. The wife in turn in reply contended that she had never misbehaved with the husband and has not committed any cruelty but it was at the behest of the husband after an affair, they entered into a wedlock. She further stated that the husband knowing fully well that she is a widow, the marriage was performed. She further stated that because of the wish and will of the husband, she underwent a surgery to conceive the child and thereafter child was born. It is further stated that after birth of the child, the behaviour of the husband became strange and for the some reason or the other he wanted to separate. Therefore, on false allegations and grounds, the application for divorce was filed.

5. Learned family Court framed issue on the ground that whether the husband was treated with cruelty by wife or not. On behalf of the husband/respondent, two witnesses were examined namely Surendra Kumar Patel i.e. the husband himself as PW-1 and sister of the wife namely Rohini Mishra (PW-2). Whereas on behalf of the wife, she examined herself as DW-1 and one witness Ananda Pathak, another sister. The learned family Court after evaluating the facts & evidence, allowed the application of the husband, thereby decree of divorce was granted. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree, the present appeal is by the wife.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that the learned family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the wife was treated with cruelty by the husband

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top