Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
Madhu Sharma - Petitioners
Versus
Subhash Chander Sharma - Respondent
First Appeal from Order No. 97-M of 1993.
Decided On : 2 July, 1996
HUSBAND AND WIFE - DIVORCE - GROUNDS - ADULTERY - CRUELTY - HUSBAND ALLEGING WIFE HAVING ILLICIT RELATIONS WITH ANOTHER MAN - WIFE DENYING ALLEGATIONS - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - COURT FINDING NO COGENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE ADULTERY - HUSBAND ADMITTING COHABITATION WITH WIFE TILL FILING OF DIVORCE PETITION - COURT HOLDING ADMISSION AMOUNTING TO CONDONATION OF ALLEGED MORAL LAPSE - COURT ALSO FINDING NO OTHER FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE TO PROVE CRUELTY - COURT GRANTING DIVORCE ON GROUND OF IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE.
Fact of the Case:
Husband filed a divorce petition against his wife on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. He alleged that his wife was having an illicit relationship with another man, Jagjit Singh Mankotia, since 1980. He claimed to have witnessed several instances of their inappropriate behavior and that neighbors had also complained about it. The wife denied the allegations and stated that she had a cordial relationship with Jagjit Singh Mankotia's wife, who was her "Dharam sister." She claimed that her husband had been mistreating her and had forced her to sign a document permitting him to remarry. The wife also filed a maintenance petition against her husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband had failed to provide cogent evidence to prove the allegation of adultery. The court noted that the husband had admitted to cohabiting with his wife until the filing of the divorce petition, which amounted to condonation of the alleged moral lapse. The court also found that there was no other evidence to support the allegation of cruelty. However, the court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and granted a decree of divorce on that ground.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband had proved the allegation of adultery against his wife? 2. Whether the husband had proved the allegation of cruelty against his wife? 3. Whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In order to prove adultery, the husband needed to provide cogent evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse between his wife and another person. Circumstantial evidence could be used, but it had to be strong enough to lead to a conclusion of adultery by fair inference. The husband's evidence, which consisted primarily of his own testimony and the testimony of his brother, was not sufficient to prove adultery. 2. Cruelty, as a ground for divorce, required proof of a course of conduct that caused mental or physical suffering to the other spouse. The husband's allegations of cruelty were based solely on the alleged adultery, which the court had found not to be proven. Therefore, the husband had failed to prove the ground of cruelty. 3. The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down based on the evidence of the parties' estrangement, their separate living arrangements, and the wife's unwillingness to return to the matrimonial home.
Final Decision: The court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The findings of the trial court with regard to the issues of adultery and cruelty were set aside.
Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J. - This is wifes appeal against divorce decree granted by Mr. R.S. Madan, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, on the ground of cruelty and adultery in favour of husband-respondent Subhash Chander Sharma.
2. Uncontroverted facts are that Subhash Chander respondent was married to Madhu Sharma on November 23, 1976. Thereafter they lived in Chandigarh in various houses in different Sectors. In this wedlock Madhu Sharma gave birth to a daughter on December 1, 1979, and another daughter was born to her on January 29, 1981. For the last few years they are living separately.
3. On June 16, 1990, respondent-husband filed divorce petition against Madhu Sharma impleading Jagjit Singh Mankotia as respondent No. 2 on the ground that with him his wife is having illicit relations. According to him, his wife was having illicit relations with Jagjit Singh Mankotia since 1980. In his absence Jagjit Singh Mankotia used to visit his house and meet his wife. Neighbours made a complaint to him about this. In April, 1987 his brother Romesh Chander came to his house during the day, knocked the door, and when after 15 minutes Madhu Sharma opened the door, Romesh Chander found Jagjit Singh Mankotia also in the house. Madhu Sharma and Jagjit Singh Mankotia were not properly dressed and they became perplexed because of his visit. Jagjit Singh Mankotia immediately left his house. Romesh Chander disclosed this fact to Subhash Chander respondent. Madhu Sharma could not explain the presence of Jagjit Singh Mankotia in his house during his absence, but she admitted her fault and beseeched pardon. Despite that Jagjit Singh Mankotia continued his visits to his house in his absence. Rattan Lal Joshi also informed him that Jagjit Singh Mankotia comes to his house in his absence. On November 21, 1988, Subhash Chander and Madhu Sharma shifted to House No. 1507, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh. Jagjit Singh Mankotia started visiting his house on the pretext of delivering newspaper. In December, 1988 Subhash Chander himself saw Madhu Sharma and Jagjit Singh in a composite mood. He scolded both of them. On October 15, 1989, Subhash Chander along with his brother came to his house at about 7 P.M. Madhu Sharma opened the door, but on seeing them she became perplexed. They found Jagjit Singh Mankotia lying on a Dewan inside the house. Again there was hot altercation between the parties. Madhu Sharma threatened to commit suicide. Subhash Chander respondent called her brother Sudesh Sharma telegraphically, who came on October 17, 1989. He was also conveyed about her misconduct and illicit relations with Jagjit Singh Mankotia. Sudesh Sharma again came on October 31, 1989 and advised Madhu Sharma to behave properly. At that time Subhash Sharma gave Rs. 3,500/- to Madhu Sharma. On October 24, 1989, Madhu Sharma again went to the house of Jagjit Singh Mankotia. On December 7, 1989, Madhu Sharmas brother came to his house and before him it was settled that she would have no relation with Mankotia. The keys of the locker would be given to her and she would tender apology for her conduct. Subhash Sharma handed over keys of the locker to her. On January 21, 1990, Madhu Sharma quarreled with the petitioner-respondent Subhash Chander and left the matrimonial home. She went to jagjit Singhs house and lived there for about eight days. On January 24, 1990, Subhash Chander filed a petition before Mohalla Sudhar Samiti, which held its deliberations on January 28, 1990. It was decided that wife of Jagjit Singh and their children could visit Subhash Chanders house for about one month and Madhu Sharma would come back to petitioners house. But on that day she declined to come. She came back on the following day. On February 18, 1990, Mohalla Sudhar Samiti took a decision. Its copy is produced at Exhibit P-3. Samiti again held its meeting in the presence of relations of Madhu Sharma. It was decided that Madhu Sharma should go to her brothers place for some time, but
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
