Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. Mehrotra, J.
SULOCHANA - Appellant
Versus
RAM KUMAR CHAUHAN - Respondents
Second Appeal 927 Of 1979
Decided On : 11/28/1980
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - JUDICIAL SEPARATION - GROUNDS - CRUELTY - FALSE ACCUSATION OF UNCHASTITY - RELIEF - REQUIREMENTS - PLEADING - VERIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Husband filed a petition for divorce or, alternatively, judicial separation on grounds of cruelty, adultery, and desertion. The wife denied the allegations and counter-alleged that the husband had illicit relations with his brother's wife and other women. The trial court found that the husband failed to establish his allegations but granted judicial separation based on the wife's false accusation of adultery against the husband. The appellate court upheld the decree for judicial separation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the decree for judicial separation could not be sustained because the husband had not pleaded cruelty on the part of the wife in his petition. The court noted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, a petition for judicial separation or divorce must state the facts on which the claim to relief is founded and that the statements in the petition must be verified. The court also noted that the wife's allegation of cruelty was made in her written statement and not in a counterclaim, and that the husband had not amended his petition to include the allegation of cruelty. The court further held that the fact that the parties led evidence about the allegation of cruelty and that the courts below gave a concurrent finding in favor of the husband was of no avail, as relief could not be granted on the basis of an allegation not made in the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether a decree for judicial separation could be sustained on the basis of an accusation of unchaste life on the part of the husband contained in the written statement filed by the wife and upon proof of the falsity of that accusation after concluding that the husband had failed to establish the allegations made by him in the petition, which did not contain an allegation to the effect that the wife was guilty of having treated him with cruelty by imputing an adulterous and unchaste life to him. 2. Whether the courts below were right in their view that a false accusation of unchastity would amount to cruelty or that the finding about the allegation by the appellant being false was vitiated as being based upon evidence which was inadmissible in law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the decree for judicial separation could not be sustained because the husband had not pleaded cruelty on the part of the wife in his petition. The court noted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, a petition for judicial separation or divorce must state the facts on which the claim to relief is founded and that the statements in the petition must be verified. The court also noted that the wife's allegation of cruelty was made in her written statement and not in a counterclaim, and that the husband had not amended his petition to include the allegation of cruelty. 2. The court held that the fact that the parties led evidence about the allegation of cruelty and that the courts below gave a concurrent finding in favor of the husband was of no avail, as relief could not be granted on the basis of an allegation not made in the petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree of the court below was set aside, and the respondent's petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the wife who is aggrieved by a decree of judicial separation passed by the Civil Judge, Roorkee on April 15, 1978 in matrimonial Case No. 126 of 1974 and affirmed by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by his order dated january 23, 1979 in Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1978.
( 2 ) THE petition was presented by the husband, respondent in this appeal, on August 12, 1974. In this petition it was prayed that his marriage with the appellant which was solemnised on May 10, 1965 be dissolved by a decree of divorce or, alternatively a decree for judicial separation be passed in favour of the husband. The relief aforesaid was sought by the husband on allegations which were in substance these; the appellant (Smt. Sulochana) was married to him according to Hindu Vedic rites on May 10, 1965 at village Bishanpura Rohalki, Pargana Jwalapur, District Saharanpur and she has a son aged about two years; the appellant was found to be of extremely harsh temperament and loose character and desirous of living with her parents where she lived for most of the time. She had only passed High School at the time of her marriage but had obtained her Degree of M. A. by the time the petition was presented. She had adulterous connection with various persons. The appellant was in service in village Bongala. Whenever she came to the house of the husband for short, intervals she used to cause mental agony to him and even attempted to administer poison to him and also tried to contact some Siana in order to cause insanity to the husband so as to get rid of him. She assaulted his mother and Bhabhi and there was danger to his life on account of the appellants ways which she refused to mend in spite of repeated requests. She had also deserted him before two years of the presentation of the petition. The son, it was alleged in paragraph 17 of the petition, was born to the appellant on account of her illicit connection with some other person.
( 3 ) THE appellants defence in her written statement, in the main, was that the petition was based upon incorrect allegations and that, in fact, it was the respondent who had been treating her with cruelty. She lived with the husband at his residence and discharged her marital obligations and the son was born of their wedlock; since the respondent had not cared to maintain her, she had to serve for a period of about seven months between February, 1973 and August, 1973 to maintain herself and her minor child on a salary of Rs. 150 per month; false allegation of adultery had been levelled against her even though the truth of the matter was that "the relations of the petitioner (husband) with his Bhabhi Shrimati Satyabhama are not above board and which were suspected by the respondent (wife ). The respondent showed her unpleasantness over this whereupon the petitioner beat up the respondent and used abusive language as against the respondent. " That since the respondent (wife) was not able to compromise the situation the petition has been got filed by the said Srimati Satya Bhama". The husband also had illicit relation with other girls of whom one was Sabita to whom he wrote letters as well. The husband was living in adultery. The husband was also annoyed with her on account of the failure of her father to meet the demands about dowry.
( 4 ) A replication was filed by the respondent-husband and in paragraph 14 thereof it was stated that "the charges of adultery on the part and against the plaintiff are not only false but amount to mental cruelty to the petitioner. "
( 5 ) THE trial Judge framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the defendant treated the plaintiff with persistent and repeated cruelty so as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that it would be harmful and injurious for him to live with her? 2. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled? 3. Whether the petitioner demanded the dowry from the respondent who failed to fulfil
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
