Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. L. YADAV
VIMLESH W/o SRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA S/o RAM PRASAD SHARMA - Respondents
Second Appeal 1989 Of 1988
Decided On : 04/07/1992
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 13(1)(I-A) - CRUELTY - INTERPRETATION - STANDARD OF PROOF - RECONCILIATION EFFORTS - REMARRIAGE DURING APPEAL - EFFECT:
Fact of the Case:
Husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty, desertion, and mental disorder of the wife. The wife contested the petition, denying the allegations and claiming that she was a good and dutiful wife. The trial court granted the divorce on the ground of cruelty, but the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that cruelty was not proved but desertion was not established either.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the standard of proof in cruelty cases is preponderance of probabilities, and that the letters written by the wife to the husband did not indicate any intention to desert him or become a nun or bai. The court also held that the wife's mental condition was not incurably of unsound mind, as required under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. The court further held that the husband's remarriage during the pendency of the appeal did not render the appeal infructuous.
Issues: 1. Whether the standard of proof in cruelty cases is preponderance of probabilities? 2. Whether the letters written by the wife to the husband indicated any intention to desert him or become a nun or bai? 3. Whether the wife's mental condition was incurably of unsound mind? 4. Whether the husband's remarriage during the pendency of the appeal rendered the appeal infructuous?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The standard of proof in cruelty cases is preponderance of probabilities, which means that the court must be satisfied that the cruelty is more likely than not to have occurred. 2. The letters written by the wife to the husband did not indicate any intention to desert him or become a nun or bai. The letters were interpreted as expressions of love and respect for the husband, and the wife's desire to maintain their marital relationship. 3. The wife's mental condition was not incurably of unsound mind, as required under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. There was no evidence to indicate that she was suffering from a mental disorder that would make it impossible for the husband to live with her. 4. The husband's remarriage during the pendency of the appeal did not render the appeal infructuous. The Supreme Court has held that a husband's remarriage does not automatically render a wife's appeal against a divorce decree infructuous.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the wife's appeal, set aside the judgments and orders of the lower courts, and dismissed the husband's petition for divorce.
( 1 ) - This is the defendants (wifes) Second Appeal in a petition for a decree of divorce filed by the plaintiff, the husband-respondent. The plaintiff respondent filed petition under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short the Act), on the allegations that the marriage of plaintiff respondent with the appellant was solemnized on 24-2-1978 at Mainpuri in accordance with the relevant ceremonies of the Hindu religion. After marriage the appellant wife resided with her husband for about 15 months at Agra and thereafter without any sufficient cause she withdrew from the company of her husband on 28-7-79 and she deserted the respondent for more than two years. She has been suffering from mental disorder and he could not be expected to live with her. This fact was admitted by the wife in her letters. This all was done by her to bring the marital relation to an end. It was to such an extent that it was never resumed. Her behaviour was harsh and insulting. She misbehaved with her in-laws and has apathy to discharge marital obligations and prevented him the plaintiff to have such relations. The marriage even could not be consummated in spite of efforts by the husband. She expressed willingness to renounce the world and lead life of a nun. She used to say that she was forced to marry against her wishes. Even the husband was insulted and she refused to do the household works. She made false complaints to the administratively superior officers of the respondent. She has been in a mental hospital. All these allegations constitute cruelty and in substance, grounds mentioned in S. 13 (1) (i) (a) and (iii) of the Act has been made out.
( 2 ) THE appellant wife contested the petition denying the allegations and she alleged that it is wrong to state that she lived with respondent only for 15 months at Agra, rather she lived with the plaintiff respondent up to July 1981. She has never withdrew from the company of her husband, the respondent and she never suffered from mental disorder nor she has deserted the respondent. She has been a good serviceable wife and has been discharging her marital obligations and she never committed any act which could constitute cruelty, within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a), nor the grounds under S. 13 (1) (iii) was made out, rather the respondent husband refused to maintain her and treat her as his wife and she has never been under the treatment of the alleged Dr. Yadav of Mental Hospital as alleged by the husband respondent. In fact he wanted to get rid of her so that he might contract another marriage. She has never written letters alleged by him and it was not the spirit or meaning of the letter as stated in the petition for divorce. She does not want to live separately nor has any such willingness. She has been discharging her marital obligations and is willing and ready to perform the same. She has never caused any mental or physical cruelty, nor she wanted to renounce the world or to lead the life of a nun. She never stated to be married against her wishes. The petition for divorce was filed on totally incorrect allegations and deserve to be dismissed.
( 3 ) THE trial Court decreed the petition for divorce holding that the allegations of cruelty as envisaged under S. 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act was proved, but about the ground that she has been incurably of unsound mind, it was found in negative against the respondent. The appellant preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was substantially dismissed holding that the cruelty, was proved, whereas desertion for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of petition as envisaged by S. 13 (1) (i-b) was not proved.
( 4 ) SRI S. N. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in view of S. 23 (2) of the Act before proceeding to grant any relief under the Act, it shall be the duty of the Court in first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do, to make every endeavour to
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
