Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1237
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL & SNEH PRASHAR, JJ.
Dev Raj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Usha Kumari – Respondent
FAO No. M-18 of 2015
Decided On : 13.1.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Kirpal Singh Thakur, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove mental cruelty in cases of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the importance of considering the cumulative effect of facts and circumstances.
Headnote:
Cruelty - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 - 13(1)(ia) - Summary: The court discussed the grounds for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and emphasized that cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty. The court highlighted the difficulty in defining cruelty and the need to consider the cumulative effect of facts and circumstances to establish mental cruelty. The court found that the appellant failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against his wife, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, alleging that his wife refused to serve his mother, humiliated him in front of guests, and denied him sexual intercourse. The respondent refuted the allegations and provided specific instances of cruelty by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's allegations were vague and general, while the respondent offered reasonable explanations for each allegation. The court concluded that the appellant failed to fulfill his duties as a husband and father, and therefore, could not expect the respondent to fulfill her matrimonial obligations. The court also noted that the appellant did not come to the court with clean hands.
Issues: The issues included whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty, the maintainability of the petition, the locus standi of the petitioner, and the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to consider the cumulative effect of facts and circumstances to establish mental cruelty. It also highlighted that a spouse cannot expect fulfillment of matrimonial obligations if they fail to fulfill their own duties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the trial court to dismiss the petition for dissolution of marriage.
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
1. A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act of 1955) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was filed by appellant-husband Dev Raj Sharma against his wife-respondent Usha Kumari Sharma, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the instant appeal was preferred by appellant-husband.
2. In precise, the facts which need to be noticed are as under:-
Appellant-petitioner Dev Raj Sharma was married to respondent Usha Kumari Sharma on 01.05.1983 at village Thou, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. After marriage, they cohabited as husband and wife and lived initially at village Panjot and then at various places where the appellant used to be posted during his service tenure and ultimately they settled at village Balongi, Tehsil and District Mohali. Out of the wedlock, two sons namely, Ashok Kumar and Manoj Kumar were born on 30.11.1985 and 25.12.1986 respectively.
The appellant alleged that from the very inception of marriage he was treated with cruelty by respondent Usha Kumari. He being employed in a bank had remained posted at different places and was presently posted at Chandigarh. After the death of his father, his mother was living alone in their ancestral village. Being the only son, he wanted to look after his old and infirm mother and brought her to village Balongi. However, respondent Usha Kumari was not happy and she started quarreling with him and kept the atmosphere in the house charged. She refused to serve his mother and humiliated her to the extent that she went back to the ancestral village at Panjot and was again living there all alone.
The appellant further pleaded that as and when he used to send some allowance to his mother for her maintenance and medical expenses etc. his wife Usha Kumari would fight with him. Whenever any friend or relative came to their house, she refused to come out of her room to meet them or prepare tea etc. for them which caused humiliation to him in front of the guests. She also refused to perform her marital obligations and did not allow him to have sex with her for the last three years which also amounted to mental cruelty to him. She was also in the habit of leaving matrimonial home without informing him. She was engaged in the vocation of tailoring and had employed ten persons who had been working in the shop opened in the house. She had just stopped cooking food etc. for him and had been filing complaints against him based on false allegations before the police.
With the above submissions, the appellant prayed for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.
3. The petition was contested by respondent-wife Usha Kumari. Admitting that she is legally wedded wife of the appellant and that two sons were born out of their wedlock, she submitted that both the sons were living under her care and custody. From the very beginning, the appellant had been cruel and harsh towards her. He had various vices including taking excessive liquor and non vegetarian food etc. He never paid the school/college fee of the children and whenever she reminded him of the same, he would give her merciless beatings. He would spend all his income on bad habits and would never think about kitchen expenses of the family. Many a times, he even threatened to sell the house which was the only shelter for her and the children.
Narrating the incidents of cruelty towards her, the respondent pleaded that in the year 1984, she was administered Tejab by the appellant deceitfully in a liquid medicine. She was taken to the hospital and she remained under treatment for a month. Yet, she remained quiet considering the reputation of her and her parental family. Secondly, in the year 1992, the appellant came home in odd hours under the influence of liquor and when she objected, the appellant picked up a hot cooker and hit
