Back
1993 Supreme(P&H) 1185
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.C.Garg, J.
Archna Sharma
Versus
Suresh Kumar Sharma
First Appeal from the Order No. 140 of 1991,
Decided On : DECEMBER 20, 1993
Unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty made for the first time in the written statement and not put to trial cannot be taken into consideration in a divorce proceeding.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 13 - DIVORCE - CRUELTY - MENTAL CRUELTY - WIFE'S ALLEGATIONS OF DOWRY DEMAND AND MAL-TREATMENT - HUSBAND'S ALLEGATIONS OF WIFE'S SUPERIOR ATTITUDE AND DISPARAGING REMARKS - WIFE'S VISIT TO HUSBAND'S HOUSE WITH MUSCLE MEN AND OBTAINING WARRANT OF RECOVERY - HUSBAND'S COMPLAINTS TO EMPLOYER AND WOMEN CELL - COURT HELD THAT ALLEGATIONS NOT PROVED AND NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE MENTAL CRUELTY - DIVORCE DENIED.
Fact of the Case:
Husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the wife considered herself superior to him, made derogatory remarks, and brought muscle men to his house. The wife denied the allegations and claimed that she was subjected to cruelty and mental torture by the husband and his family, including demands for dowry. The trial court granted the husband a divorce.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband's allegations of cruelty were not substantiated and that the wife's allegations of dowry demand and mal-treatment were made for the first time in the written statement and were not put to trial. The court also held that the husband's complaints to the employer and the Women Cell were not made a part of the pleadings and were not referred to in the husband's statement. The court further found that the wife's visit to the husband's house with muscle men and obtaining a warrant of recovery was done to save her life from threats given by her father-in-law.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband's allegations of cruelty were substantiated? 2. Whether the wife's allegations of dowry demand and mal-treatment were made for the first time in the written statement and were not put to trial? 3. Whether the husband's complaints to the employer and the Women Cell were made a part of the pleadings and were referred to in the husband's statement? 4. Whether the wife's visit to the husband's house with muscle men and obtaining a warrant of recovery was done to save her life from threats given by her father-in-law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the husband's allegations of cruelty were not substantiated as they were not supported by evidence and were contradicted by the wife's statement. 2. The court held that the wife's allegations of dowry demand and mal-treatment were made for the first time in the written statement and were not put to trial, and therefore could not be taken into consideration. 3. The court held that the husband's complaints to the employer and the Women Cell were not made a part of the pleadings and were not referred to in the husband's statement, and therefore could not be taken into consideration. 4. The court held that the wife's visit to the husband's house with muscle men and obtaining a warrant of recovery was done to save her life from threats given by her father-in-law, and therefore did not constitute cruelty.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's decree of divorce and dismissed the husband's petition for divorce.
G.C.Garg, J.
1. This is wifes appeal. Appellant herein will be referred to as the wife whereas respondent as the husband.
2. This appeal has arisen out of a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) filed on April 24, 1990 by the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petition was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak and marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. It is in these circumstances, the wife has filed the present appeal.
3. Marriage between the parties took place on December 12, 1988 according to Hindu rites in Delhi. The couple was blessed with a male child in the second week of November, 1989. At the time of marriage the wife was employed as teacher in Delhi whereas the husband was employed as a clerk in a bank in Delhi. As per allegation of the husband, dispute started right from the beginning. The allegations as levelled by the husband in the petition for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty have been detailed in the divorce petition and deserve to be noticed at this stage. After the marriage, the parties stayed at Rohtak till December 28, 1988 and thereafter left for Delhi. They stayed at the house of parents of the wife for some time and thereafter they took a flat on rent near the parental home of the wife and shifted to that place. They continued visiting Rohtak, where parents of the husband is resided, off and on. The allegation of the husband is that the wife always considered herself superior to him both in status and education, she being a post-graduate and he being a graduate, and consequently never extended love and affection to him. She had been using derogatory remarks against him by saying that he was only a clerk and she was Master of Commerce and employed as a teacher. After the birth of the child in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital in Delhi, she went to her parental home with the child from the Hospital in spite of the fact that the husband requested her to accompany to Rohtak where the ultimately went on December 19, 1989. Her attitude towards the parents of the husband was disparaging. It was ultimately alleged that on December 29, 1989, Smt. Urmila mother of the wife came to Rohtak in the late hours of the evening, she hurled abuses while entering the house of the husband and started shouting that she will take away her daughter along with the child to Delhi. The husband and his parents became stunned. The mother of the wife was accompanied by a few muscle men who had been brought by her in a taxi. In the circumstances, the matter was reported to the police. Some policemen came there and took into custody the driver of the taxi, Laxmi Kant, Ram Kumar Sharma, Pankaj Anand, Dinesh Kumar, Adarsh Kumar and Sanjay Sharma. In the morning of December 30, 1989, father of the wife reached Rohtak, he approached the parents of the husband with folded hands and begged pardon for what had happened on the previous night. He was extremely apologetic and assured the husband and his family that no such thing shall take place in future. The wife and the child continued residing with the husband and his parents at Rohtak. It is the further allegation of the husband that on March 13, 1990, the mother of the wife came to Rohtak to meet her daughter when she got manoeuvered some writing from her. On March 19, 1990, father of the wife along with Police came from Delhi and took away the wife and the child with him on the basis of a warrant of recovery issued by the Munsif Magistrate, Delhi. The husband and his father went to Delhi on the same day when the wife and the child were produced before the Munsif Magistrate, Delhi. They moved an application asking for custody of the wife and the child but the wife made a statement, that she will reside with her parents and will not go to her husbands house.
4. In the circumstances, the Munsif Magistrate, Delhi passed an order permitting the parents of the wife to take the wife a
