2014 Supreme(Del) 3210
DELHI HIGH COURT
Sunil Gaur, J.
Mahendra Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Sunita Sharma - Resopndent
MAT. APP. 30 of 2012
Decided On : 25-11-2014
For the Respondent: Nemo.
Levelling baseless allegations of extra-marital affairs causing mental cruelty constitutes cruelty in law, justifying divorce.
Headnote:
Cruelty - Divorce Petition - The court allowed the appellant's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty based on unchallenged evidence of baseless allegations of extra-marital affairs causing mental cruelty to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The trial court dismissed the appellant's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty due to lack of concrete, specific, and material facts in the pleadings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unchallenged evidence of baseless allegations of extra-marital affairs causing mental cruelty to the appellant made out a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty, rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the pleadings and evidence to establish cruelty as grounds for divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock amounts to cruelty in law, as established in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaya Kumar Bhate.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellant's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was allowed, granting the appellant a divorce.
Sunil Gaur, J.
1. Vide impugned judgment of 24th December, 2011 appellant’s petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty stands dismissed by trial court while holding as under:-
“The above discussion shows that the pleadings of the petitioner lack in concrete, specific and material facts and they mostly consist of opinion and inferences. They cannot be termed as facts. The inherent defect of pleadings cannot be cured by any amount of evidence. The pleadings circumscribe the scope of evidence.”
2. The facts are not reproduced as they are already noticed in the impugned judgment. Respondent was served but none had appeared on behalf of respondent. It is so noted in the last order. It was submitted by learned counsel for appellant that respondent-wife was ex-parte before trial court as well and allegations of cruelty levelled against respondent are specific and in view of the unchallenged evidence on record, appellant ought to have been granted divorce. Thus, it is submitted that impugned judgment is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.
3. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, I find that in the pleadings as well as in the evidence, appellant has maintained before the trial court that respondent-wife had recklessly levelled allegations against appellant of having extra-marital affairs with a lady who was living in the same locality. Appellant has maintained that the allegations of extra-marital affairs are false and unsubstantiated and have thus caused considerable mental cruelty to appellant. Merely because appellant has not given the date, month or the year of levelling of such baseless allegations would not negate the stand of the appellant because it is the case of appellant that such baseless allegations were levelled time and again by respondent against the appellant.
4. The Apex Court in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaya Kumar Bhate AIR 2003 SC 2462 has observed as under:-
“Levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with the person outside wedlock and allegations of extra-marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of a wife. Such as persons of perfidiousness attributed to the wife would amount to the worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law.”
5. In the instant case, the unchallenged ex-parte evidence led by appellant makes out a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Impugned judgment is rendered unsustainable. Resultantly, the impugned judgment is set aside and appellant’s petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty is allowed and appellant is granted divorce.
This appeal is accordingly disposed of.