Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Ranjan Baruah – Appellant
Versus
Shravani Khound Baruah – Respondent
Mat. App. No. 49 of 2017
Decided On : 14-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : P. Borthakur, A. Chamuah.
For the Respondents: S. Borthakur, P. Bora.

IMPORTANT POINT
Mental cruelty, as defined under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, can be established through a pattern of abusive behavior that leads to the breakdown of the marital relationship, justifying the dissolution of marriage.

Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia), Section 28 - The court discussed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly Section 13(1)(ia), which allows for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, both physical and mental. The court interpreted 'cruelty' as conduct that causes reasonable apprehension of harm or injury to one spouse by the other. The court emphasized that mental cruelty can be established through a sustained course of abusive behavior, leading to the breakdown of the marital relationship. The court's decision was influenced by precedents that define mental cruelty and the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as valid grounds for divorce.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee of a bank, married the respondent in 2004, and they had a daughter in 2005. Their relationship deteriorated due to the respondent's alleged misbehavior and threats of filing false dowry claims, leading to a separation in living conditions. The appellant filed for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming mental cruelty, while the respondent countered with allegations of cruelty against her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had been subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent, as evidenced by her public confrontations at his workplace and the lack of a normal marital relationship since 2009. The trial court's dismissal of the appellant's suit was deemed erroneous, as the evidence supported the claim of mental cruelty and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the respondent wife is guilty of cruelty against the petitioner husband? 4. Whether the respondent wife is guilty of deserting the petitioner husband for more than two years? 5. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on established legal principles regarding mental cruelty, emphasizing that sustained abusive behavior can constitute grounds for divorce. The court noted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, justifying the dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel representing the appellant as well as Ms. P. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 challenging the judgment dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit (M) 79/2011.

3. The appellant is the only child of his old parents. He is an employee of a Bank. He married the respondent on 02.05.2004. Out of the wedlock, a girl child was born to the couple on 04.08.2005.

4. Very soon, the couple fell from cloud nine. The respondent started to misbehave with the appellant and his old parents. The cracks in their relationship grew bigger day-after-day. She started to threaten them that she will file an FIR in the police station alleging demand of dowry.

5. Ultimately, the old parents of the appellant had to leave their ancestral house to live in a rented house. It is alleged that the respondent even used to go the work place of the appellant where she openly quarreled with the appellant in front other employees.

6. Even, the appellant had to shift to a rented house. In the meantime, he was transferred to Manipur and he had to go to Manipur. But he used to maintain his wife/the respondent and his child.

7. It is stated that since the year 2009, the appellant and the respondent are not maintaining the relationship of husband and wife though they live under the same roof.

8. Narrating the aforesaid facts, the appellant filed the application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for a decree of dissolution of marriage.

9. The respondent contested the case by filling written statement. She has admitted that she lives in the same rented house with the appellant, but she lives in separate rooms. She alleges that the appellant and his mother subjected her to cruelty. According to the respondent, the appellant and his mother took away a cash amount of ` 53,000/-and the gold ornaments given to her by her parents at the time of her marriage. She further claims that she was misbehaved by the mother of the appellant for giving birth to a female child. Lastly, the respondent claimed that the appellant filed the divorce proceeding on false ground in order to remarry another girl.

10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the respondent wife is guilty of cruelty against the petitioner husband?

(iv) Whether the respondent wife is guilty of deserting the petitioner husband for more than two years?

(v) To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?

11. During the trial of the case, the appellant examined himself along with his mother and another person called Parag Tamuli. The respondent examined herself only.

12. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant.

13. I have carefully gone through the evidence.

14. The witness Parag Tamuli is a Security Guard of the Bank where the appellant used to work. He has stated in his evidence that on more than one occasion, the respondent had come to the Bank and publicly quarreled with the appellant.

15. It is an admitted fact that the respondent, though lived in the same house with the appellant, used to live in separate rooms since long. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the appellant and the respondent never had the relationship of husband and wife.

16. Now, I shall rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511. Paragraph 101 of the judgment is quoted as under:

“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty.” The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:

(i) On consi