Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1254
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL & SNEH PRASHAR, JJ.
Jyotsna Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Gaurav Sharma – Respondent
F.A.O. No. M-193 of 2014
Decided On : 27.1.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Amit Prashar, Advocate.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13--Divorce--Cruelty--Meaning--Held, word 'cruelty' used in S.13(1)(ia) of the Act has not been defined in said Act--However, it has been used in relation to human conduct, human behaviour or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations--Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to behaviour or behavioural pattern by other--Unlike case of physical cruelty mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence--It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from facts and circumstances of case.
A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by conduct of other can only be appreciated on assessing attending facts and circumstances in which two partners of matrimonial life have been living--Inference has to be drawn from attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively--In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty--Approach should be to take cumulative effect of facts and circumstances emerging from evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether petitioner in divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of other. (Para 13, 14)
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13--Divorce--Mental Cruelty--Wife being disrespectful to husband and his parents and also by levelling false allegations against them in her complaint to police--She admitted her faults, regretted, but continued to cause mental pain to respondent--Held, respondent entitled to dissolution of his marriage with appellant--Grant of decree of divorce by trial Court proper--Appeal dismissed. (Para 15)
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
1. By way of this appeal, Jyotana Sharma-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) assailed the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, allowing the petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the act of 1955) filed by her husband Gaurav Sharma-petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner).
2. The relevant facts extracted from the record are as under:
Appellant Jyotsna Sharma was married to respondent Gaurav Sharma on 08.07.2010 at Alwar, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They lived and cohabited as husband and wife at the matrimonial home in Jaipur.
The allegation of the petitioner-husband was that the appellant used to misbehave with him and his family members. He elaborated incidents of mental cruelty by the appellant, which included non-participation in post-marriage ceremonies and other family functions; shouting and arguing loudly on petty issues; non performance of household chores; locking the bathroom from inside to cause annoyance and delay to him in going to the office; extending threats of committing suicide and of false implication in criminal cases.
The petitioner further pleaded that the appellant use to leave the matrimonial home without his consent and even without informing him. She admitted her fault and guilt through letters and affidavits but failed to mend her ways. All his efforts to reconcile the disputes with the mediation of friends, relatives and respectables proved futile. Finally, on 22.04.2011, the appellant left the matrimonial home and since then they were living separately. He prayed for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that he had been treated with cruelty by the appellant and had been deserted by her.
3. The appellant contested the petition. Besides raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the petition and suppression of true and material facts by the petitioner, the appellant specifically dealt with and denied incidents) of cruelty narrated in the petition. She pleaded that the respondent and his family was not satisfied with the articles of dowry given by her parents at the time of marriage and they consistently harassed her and demanded an I.20 Car and Rs. 20 lacs in cash as a precondition to settle her in matrimonial home. She was forced to file a complaint before the Mahila Police Station at Alwar against the respondent and his family members due to unabated ill treatment at their hands. With the said submissions, she prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty? OPP
(2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPP.
(3) Relief.
5. During evidence, petitioner Gaurav Sharma stepped into the witness box as PW6 and reiterated his allegations on oath. To corroborate his version, he examined PW1 Vinod Sharma, PW2 R.C. Verma, PW3 Balraj Sharma, PW4 Vimal Sharma, PW5 Bhavik Sharma and tendered documents Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/28 and also Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/2 to Ex.PW6/65.
On the other hand, the respondent appeared as RW1 reiterating the defence set up by her and tendered documents Ex.R1, Ex.R2 and Ex.RA.
6. Scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the parties and considering the submissions made on their behalf, learned trial Court finding that the petitioner had successfully proved ground of mental cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act of 1955 against the appellant, decided Issue No. 1 in his favour and allowed the petition. A decree for divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties was passed.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.03.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, appellant Jyotsna preferred the instant appeal.
8. The submissions made by Mr. Amit Prashar, learned counsel representing the app
