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

2014 Supreme(Del) 1566

High Court of Delhi
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
Sandhya Pandey
Versus
Kunj Bihar Pandey
MAT. APP. 60 of 2012, CM APPL. 18340 of 2012
Decided on : 30-05-2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

Headnote:

Cruelty - Divorce Petition - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) - Black's Law Dictionary, Shoba Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1998) 1 SCC 105, Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli 1 (2006) DHC 489 (SC), Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit, Samar Ghose vs. Jaya Ghose - No comprehensive definition of concept of ‘mental cruelty’ can be given nor can any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters can be laid down. - 'Cruelty' under Hindu Marriage Act includes subjection of one’s spouse at the hands of the other and manifestation of such feelings towards her; infliction of bodily injury upon the other or leading to apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or the actual injury to health. The cruelty would include both physical as well as mental cruelty. The latter would include the conduct of one’s spouse as to lead the mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life to other. All that is required is reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to the apprehensive party to live with the spouse. However, cruelty has to be distinguished from ordinary wear and tear of the family life.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion by the respondent. The petitioner detailed instances of physical and mental cruelty, including unreasonable demands for money and jewellery, beatings, and forced domestic servitude. The respondent was served through substituted service and proceeded ex parte. The Trial Court dismissed the petition for failure to prove the allegations.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner's testimony was not cross-examined and thus amounted to admission by the respondent. However, the Court sought corroboration of uncontroverted facts and concluded that the petitioner failed to prove her case. The Court also reasoned that the allegation of desertion was vague and did not satisfy the requirement of 'cruelty' or mental 'desertion' of the petitioner.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's allegations of cruelty and desertion, the requirement for corroboration of uncontroverted facts, and the legal definition of 'cruelty' under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for corroboration of uncontroverted facts and discussed the legal definition of 'cruelty' under the Hindu Marriage Act, highlighting the distinction between physical and mental cruelty and the requirement for reasonable apprehension of harm or injury to the apprehensive party.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, finding that both the grounds of cruelty and desertion were established, and granted a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Act. The Trial Court's order was set aside, and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Judgment :

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. This petition impugns an order dated 21.07.2011 which dismissed the petitioner’s petition seeking grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The facts are that the petitioner had married the respondent on 06.05.1990 at Chhapra, Bihar. The petitioner started living along with respondent as husband and wife in her matrimonial home. Two children namely Abhilasha and Master Abhinav were born to them. Petitioner came into her matrimonial home along with gifts and jewellery. However, after marriage unreasonable demands towards money as well as jewellery etc. continued to be made by the respondent and his family members. Since the petitioner’s parents were not in a position to meet the said demands of money and jewellery, she was repeatedly beaten up by the respondent while the rest of his family members were extremely inimical and cruel towards her. However, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the respondent by the petitioner’s family by taking the same on loan from their relatives. It is stated that despite the payment of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- the behaviour of the respondent and his family members did not improve towards her, rather they became more cruel towards her thereby resulting in torture and abuse of the petitioner in her matrimonial home and she was forced to do the entire household works like a domestic servant there. She alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 30.06.2007 along with her two children. On that day all that they had with them were the clothes on their bodies. She sought refuge in one of her relatives’ family namely Ashok Singh at D-99, Yadav Nagar, Samaipur Badli, Delhi. Thereafter, on 26.08.2007 when she went to her matrimonial home along with her minor daughter to take her minor daughter’s bicycle and books etc. the respondent beat her and her minor daughter. The police was then called and thereafter she was medically examined at trauma centre, Delhi. During investigation she came to know through her neighbours that the respondent has been trying to sell her matrimonial home A-14/6, Bawa Colony, Burari, Delhi-84 through Power of Attorney, sale deed etc. She claims that with the intervention of the local police as well as respectable members of the society, she was re-inducted in the matrimonial home on 08.09.2007 when the respondent and his family members also promised not to harass her in future. She claims that she is residing at the said address with her minor children ever since. She also stated that certain blank documents were made to be signed by her unknowingly by the respondent and his family members. That thereafter, the respondent and his family members continued to extend threat to her and her children to dispossess them from the matrimonial home of the petitioner as a result whereof she had filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent for restraining him from dispossession of the matrimonial home. An interim injunction was granted in her favour on 14.01.2008. The petitioner contends that since 05.10.2008, the respondent has left the company of the petitioner and is residing at his native place at Chhapra, Bihar; whereas the petitioner has been living alone since then without any monetary support or help from her husband to meet her personal expenses and for upbringing of their children. It was stated that the petition was not filed in collusion with the respondent and she had not condoned the acts cruelty committed by the respondent; there was no delay in filing the petition. She stated that there was no reason why the relief sought by her could not be granted.

3. Although notice of the petitioner was issued to the respondent, but he could not be served through ordinary process but was served by substituted service through publication in Rastriya Sahara, Bihar Edition dated 16.04.2011. Due to default in appearance despite service through publication, th













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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top