SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(All) 69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Agarwala and P. L. Bhargava, JJ.
ANNIE BARON - Appellant
Versus
B.K.BARON - Respondents
First Appeal 1 Of 1945
Decided On : 03/15/1950

Advocates Appeared:
G.S.PATHAK, R.N.Gurtu, RAMA

Headnote:

JUDICIAL SEPARATION - CRUELTY - CONDUCT OF HUSBAND - TEST - APPREHENSION OF INJURY TO HEALTH - CUSTODY OF CHILDREN - ALIMONY.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Mrs. Annie Baron, filed a petition for judicial separation and consequential relief against the respondent, Mr. Baron, on the grounds of cruelty. The appellant alleged that the respondent had been exhibiting a disposition of distrust in money matters towards her, had abused and scolded her in filthy and obscene language, had assaulted and beaten her on several occasions, and had locked her up with her youngest child in a room and denied them food and water. The respondent denied the allegations of cruelty and claimed that the appellant was guilty of cruelty towards him.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's conduct towards the appellant amounted to cruelty and that the appellant was entitled to a decree for judicial separation. The court also awarded the appellant custody of the youngest child, Nector Baron, and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant a permanent alimony of Rs. 70 per month.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondent's conduct towards the appellant amounted to cruelty. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to a decree for judicial separation. 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to custody of the youngest child, Nector Baron. 4. Whether the respondent was liable to pay the appellant permanent alimony.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent's conduct towards the appellant amounted to cruelty because it had made the continuance of cohabitation and the performance of conjugal duties an impossibility and had created a personal danger to the appellant's health. The court relied on the test laid down by the majority of the noble Lords in Earl Russel v. Countess Russel, 1897 A. C. 395, which held that "to constitute legal cruelty there must be danger to life, or injury to health, bodily or mentally, or a reasonable apprehension of it." 2. The court held that the appellant was entitled to a decree for judicial separation because the respondent's conduct had made the continuance of cohabitation and the performance of conjugal duties an impossibility. 3. The court held that the appellant was entitled to custody of the youngest child, Nector Baron, because the respondent's conduct towards the appellant had created a personal danger to the child's health. 4. The court held that the respondent was liable to pay the appellant permanent alimony because she was unable to support herself.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the lower court, and granted the appellant a decree for judicial separation, a permanent alimony of Rs. 70 per month, and a reasonable sum as rent of the place of her residence. The court also awarded the appellant custody of the youngest child, Nector Baron, and ordered the respondent to bear the expenses of her education and maintenance.

AGARWALA, J.


( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Mrs. Annie Baron against an order dismissing her petition for judicial divorce and for consequential relief.

( 2 ) THE parties were married on 11th October 1930 at the Methodist Church at Almora. Of this marriage they had three children, two boys and a girl. The eldest boy was born in December 1931. In March 1984 a girl was born and in September 1988 a second son was born. According to the appellant, for about four or five months after the marriage, the parties lived happily, but after that the respondent began exhibiting a disposition of distrust in money matters towards the appellant. The appellant alleged that the niggardly and distrustful behaviour on the part of the respondent began to increase as time went on; that the opposite party began to abuse and scold the appellant in the most filthy and obscene language on the slightest provocation, called her a bastard and a woman of low extraction and made her perform the most arduous and menial tasks. This behaviour was later on as companied by assault and beating on several occasions, Particular instances of callous behaviour of the respondent were mentioned by the appellant. She alleged that at the end of 1933 when she was expecting the second child, the respondent gave her a thrashing and turned her out of the house with the result that she had to go to her brother at mukteshwar and lived there for three years: that at that time she contemplated proceedings against the respondent but the respondents aged parents, who occupied high social status as taluqdars, prevailed on the appellant to refrain from doing so as a law suit would necessarily tarnish their reputation; that she returned to her husband at the end of 1936; that in February 1941 the appellant was severely beaten by the respondent with fists and cane, the only cause of that brutal behaviour being the appellants reprimand at the respondents indecent behaviour towards their daughter Joyce, then aged about 7 years; that on 23rd June 1941 the respondent locked up the appellant with her youngest child in a room and kept them there for the whole night denying them any food or water and would not allow them to go even to the bath room and that when the appellant managed to get out of the room in the morning after breaking a glass-pane, the respondent knocked her down and after seating himself over her beat her with his fists and throttled her, and that finally on 19th November 1942, the appellant was again cruelly beaten with fists and cane by the respondent while the parties were staying in Marine Hall, mussorie, and that on account of the constant cruel behaviour of the respondent, the appellant ultimately left him for good on 24th November 1942. She filed the petition which has given rise to this appeal on 29th March 1943. The reliefs sought for were a judicial separation, custody of all the three children who were then aged 11, 9 and 5 years respectively, and costs.

( 3 ) IN defence, the respondent admitted the marriage and the birth of the three children but denied that he had been guilty of cruelty towards the appellant. He admitted that the petitioner had gone away in 1983 and returned to him in 1936. According to him, the appellant is of low class being of illegitimate origin and born of a hill woman and, as such proved herself incapable of being a good wife or a good mother. He married her at the recommendation of the Principal of a Mission school for girls at Almora. At that time, according to him, he was not acquainted with the true facts of the appellants birth or with respect to her temperament which, according to him, was so violent that she would behave like a mad woman, shout out filthy abuse at him and in the presence of her children and neighbours and would throw things on him and would beat him if he came near her. The respondent alleged that on certain occasions he himself was assaulted by the appellant and that instead of he being guilty of cruelty, the appella
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top