Back
2013 Supreme(Guj) 154
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya & Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Mitesh Navinbhai Bhatt
Versus
Parul M. Bhatt D/o Chhelshankar Trivedi
First Appeal No. 212 of 2013—Decided on 22/04/2013
Important Points
Whether in facts of the case appellant is entitled to decree of diverse on ground of mental cruelty caused by wife.
Subject
Matrimonial - DIVORCE
Act Referred
Headnote
Family Courts Act, 1984 (Central Act 66 of 1984) — Section 19 — Appeal — Dismissing petition for divorce — Allegation of mental cruelty by wife — Finding of sustainability — The averments made in the plaint as well as the oral evidence of the husband and his mother clearly spells out act of mental cruelty at the end of wife — The petitioner husband has pointed out specific instances of cruelty which clearly prove that husband was subjected to mental cruelty — If according to wife the relations are not strained and the marital life is quite normal as alleged by her then what was the reason for wife to file complaint against husband before Women’s Rights Commission and drag husband all the way to Delhi — Even the Women Rights Commission has not found any substance in the allegations made by wife — In the circumstances Court held to have left with no other option but to allow the appeal and grant decree of divorce dissolving marriage between parties.
Held :
The averments made in the plaint as well as the oral evidence of the husband and his mother clearly spells out acts of mental cruelty at the end of the wife. It is not a case where the only averments made by the husband is that as the marriage between them has broken down, no useful purpose would be served to keep it alive, but on the contrary, specific instances of cruelty have been highlighted by the husband, which clearly prove that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty. By merely filing a written statement and denying the allegations, the wife could not be said to have discharged the burden of leading evidence to meet with the case made out by the husband. [Para 20]
If according to the wife the relations are not strained and the marital life is quite normal, then what was the reason for the wife to file a complaint against the husband before the Women’s Rights Commission and drag the appellant-husband all the way to Delhi. It appears that even the Women’s Rights Commission did not find any substance in the allegations levelled by the wife and ultimately dropped the proceedings as stated by the husband in his evidence on oath. [Para 20]
In such circumstances, Court is left with no other option but to allow this appeal and grant the decree for divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties. [Para 21]
Law Laid Down :
Mental cruelty is a course of conduct of one spouse which adversely affects the other spouse — Conduct complained of should be so grave and weighty that spouse affected must not reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse.
Appearance :
Mr. A.Y. Kogje, Advocate, for the Appellant(s) No. 1.
Ms. K.J. Brahmbhatt, Advocate, for the Defendant(s) No. 1.
Ms. Varsha Brahmbhatt, Advocate, for the Defendant(s) No. 1.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.—This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is at the instance of a husband in a Suit for Divorce, and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th April, 2012, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Surat, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 412 of 2008 (Old HMP No. 145 of 2006), thereby dismissing the petition for divorce.
2. Being dissatisfied, the husband has come up with the present appeal.
3. The husband-appellant filed a Suit for divorce, being Hindu Marriage Petition No. 412 of 2008 and the case made out by the appellant may be precise thus:
(a) The parties were Hindus and were married according to the Hindu rites and the customs on 6th March, 1994 at Surat;
(b) During the wedlock, a son named Urmish was born on 15th February, 1997 and thereafter, a daughter named Mrudvi was born on 8th August, 2005. After the marriage, the appellant used to take good care of his wife and was performing all the matrimonial obligations which a husband is expected to perform for a normal healthy marital life;
(c) The wife’s nature had been very obstinate and rude. However, the husband consoled himself with the hope and belief that his wife would improve and accordingly, continued with the marital life. However, the relationship between the parties started getting strained as the behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant was very rude and rough. The respondent-wife made it very clear before the appellant that the income derived by her would be kept by her and the income derived by the husband would have to be shared equally according to the law. Although the respondent happened to be the wife of the appellant, the appellant with the sole intention of avoiding any controversy, agreed to the terms dictated by the wife.
(d) The father of the appellant named Navinbhai Jethashankar Bhatt was detected with blood cancer in the year 1996 and therefore, the appellant had to visit Ahmedabad time and again for the treatment of his father. At times, the appellant used to stay over in the night at Ahmedabad for the treatment of his father, which was not liked by the wife. The wife also restrained the appellant from visiting his ailing father. At the relevant point of time in the year 1996, when the appellant used to visit Ahmedabad to enquire about the health of his father who was suffering from blood cancer, the wife was pregnant and the wife used to administer threats to the appellant that if he would meet his father, then she would abort the foetus and also demand for divorce;
(e) During the period of ailment of the father of the appellant, the appellant, as a son, was desirous of gifting a gold chain to his father, but the wife had a strong objection in that regard. The appellant had bought a gold chain on instalments, but due to quarrel picked up by the wife, the appellant was constrained to return the gold chain;
(f) Thereafter the wife demanded a pair of ear-rings, which the appellant bought from his own money for his wife and it was very willingly accepted by the wife. However, the grievance of the appellant was that at that point of time, his wife did not enquire with him as to how he had managed the finance, as a result of which the appellant felt very bad and also had a thought of committing suicide. The appellant, with a finger on his lips, kept on bearing the pain and agony of the cruelty at the end of his wife;
(g) On 27th January, 1997, the father of the appellant passed away. On the demise of the father of the appellant, the appellant brought his mother along with him and kept her at his house at Surat. However, even this was not liked by the wife and the wife behaved very badly, unbecoming of a Hindu lady, as a result of which the appellant was forced to drop his mother at Navsari. According to the appellant, his mother was staying all alone at Navsari after the demise of his father;
(h) The wife also refused to cook food and at times, the appellant used to go off to bed hungry.
