Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.K.MEHROTRA
PARVATI - Appellant
Versus
SHIV RAM - Respondent
F. A. O. (HMA) No. 24 of 1986
Decided On : 06/16/1988
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - DIVORCE - GROUNDS - ADULTERY, CRUELTY, AND DESERTION - PLEADING REQUIREMENTS - SPECIFICITY AND DETAILS - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - INFERENCE OF ADULTERY FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - QUALITY OF EVIDENCE - UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF HUSBAND - RECONCILIATION EFFORTS - FAILURE.
Fact of the Case:
Shiv Ram filed a petition for divorce against his wife, Smt. Parvati, alleging adultery, cruelty, and desertion. Smt. Parvati denied the allegations and filed a written statement. The District Judge framed issues on the pleadings of the parties and, after evaluating the evidence, answered the first three issues in the affirmative against Smt. Parvati and granted a decree of divorce.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the pleadings in the petition were vague and did not comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Himachal Pradesh) Rules, 1982, which required specific particulars of the alleged acts of adultery, cruelty, and desertion. The Court also held that the evidence adduced by the petitioner was insufficient to establish any of the grounds for divorce.
Issues: 1. Whether the pleadings in the petition were vague and did not comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Himachal Pradesh) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether the evidence adduced by the petitioner was sufficient to establish any of the grounds for divorce?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the pleadings in the petition were vague and did not comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Himachal Pradesh) Rules, 1982, which required specific particulars of the alleged acts of adultery, cruelty, and desertion. The Court observed that the charge of adultery is a serious charge that casts aspersion on the character of the spouse and affects their reputation in society, and therefore, it must be established beyond doubt. The Court further observed that the pleadings should be specific so that the answering spouse may be in a position to meet the case of the petitioner. 2. The Court held that the evidence adduced by the petitioner was insufficient to establish any of the grounds for divorce. The Court observed that the petitioner had not provided any specific instances of adultery, cruelty, or desertion, and that the evidence was not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the respondent had committed any of these acts.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of divorce granted by the District Judge, and left the parties to bear their own costs.
V. K. Mehrotra, A. C. J,—Smt. Parvati, who has filed this appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter, "the Act") against the decree for divorce dated May 7, 1985, passed by the District Judge, Mandi in Hindu Marriage Petition No It of 1983, for divorce, was married to Shiv Ram, the first respondent, some time in the year 1935. Shiv Ram was then about 7 years in age. In due course, two children, namely, a daughter and a son, were born out of their wedlock, Shiv Ram filed the petition for divorce in October, 1983. In Paragraph 4 of this petition he alleged that for the past 15 years Smt Parvati had started living adulterous life and had deserted him for nearly 3 years and started living in the house of Param Dev, the second respondent. She was, thus, committing adultery openly. She had not performed her marital obligations as legally wedded wife with Shiv Ram for the past 15 years resulting in cruelty and desertion. When she was asked by Shiv Ram to live in his house she did not do so. The case of Shiv Ram is that he was constrained to file the petition for a decree for divorce as he had not condoned the cruelty in any manner.
2. Parvati filed a written statement. While admitting the allegations in regard to her marriage with the petitioner, and two children being born out of their wedlock, she denied the allegations of adultery, cruelty and desertion made by Shiv Ram in paragraph
4. She gave out that Shiv Ram was working as a Line-man in the Electricity Department, Simla, and was living there. He contracted a second marriage and a daughter was born to him out that marriage. Infact, Shiv Ram had deserted her and was treating her with cruelty and has refused to maintain her without any reasonable cause.
3. Param Dev, who is the second respondent, also filed a written statement. He denied that Parvati was residing with him or that she had any adulterous relations with him, as alleged.
4. The learned District Judge framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:—
1. Whether the respondent, Smt. Parvati, has after the solemnisation of her marriage with the petitioner had voluntary sexual intercourse with respondent No. 2, as alleged ? OPP.
2. Whether Smt. Parvati respondent has after the solemnisation of her marriage with the petitioner, treated him with cruelty, as alleged ? OPP.
3. Whether the respondent Smt Parvati has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition ? OPP.
4. Whether therv has been unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the petition ? If so, its effect ? OPP.
5. Relief.
5. Parties adduced evidence before the learned District Judge. On evaluation of that evidence, the first three issues were answered by the learned Judge in the affirmative, against Smt. Parvati On these answers the petition was allowed. Thereafter, the present appeal.
6. Section 13 of the Act, in its material part, says that: "(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party— (i) has after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse ; or (i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (i-b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or ……………………………………………………………………………………… ...……………………………………………………………………………………. Explanation.— In this sub-section, the expression "desertion" means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
