IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Rajendra Kumar-IV, JJ.
Smt. Gayatri Mohapatra – Appellant
Versus
Ashit Kumar Panda – Respondent
First Appeal No. 20 of 2007
Decided On : 03-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 –Enforcement of decrees and order – Alternate relief in divorce proceeding – Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vaibhav Goswami, learned counsel for defendant-appellant and Sri Vishnu Singh learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent – Appellant wife married with plaintiff – respondent husband Hindu rites and rituals – Plaintiff – respondent is an I.P.S. Officer while defendant – Appellant is a Doctor holding father of plaintiff – respondent was in service of Steel Authority of India Raurkela while father of defendant – Held, Court find from facts discussion principle summarised plaintiff – respondent has proved mental cruelty by defendant – Appellant before Court below – Instances of making false complaints by defendant appellant against plaintiff – respondent to higher authorities, making wild allegations against parents of plaintiff – respondent unproved allegation of indulgence of plaintiff in adultery and damaging their reputation in society – Leaves no manner of doubt that court below has not committed any illegality in impugned judgment to hold commission of mental cruelty by defendant – Appellant to plaintiff – Respondent impugned judgement of court below is based on consideration of evidences on record impugned judgement does not suffer from any illegality – Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
1. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Vaibhav Goswami, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
Facts
2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that defendant – appellant/wife married with the plaintiff – respondent/husband on 10.06.1990 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Plaintiff – respondent is an I.P.S. Officer while the defendant – appellant is a Doctor holding M.B.B.S. Degree. The father of the plaintiff – respondent was in service of the Steel Authority of India, Raurkela while father of the defendant – appellant was Additional Director General of Police, Orissa and her mother has promoted a company known as JBS Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneshwar. Initially, the defendant – appellant joined the service in Health Department, Aligarh, but after three or four months she left it. She became Director in the aforesaid Company promoted by her mother. Son, namely, Aparajita Issan Narayan was born on 05.06.1991 from the wedlock of the plaintiff and the defendant at SCB Medical College, Cuttack.
3. It appears that dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant arose even before their son was born which led to various incidents. Ultimately the plaintiff – respondent filed case No.260 of 2000 (Ashit Kumar Panda Vs. Smt. Gayatri Devi) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Meerut, for divorce. In the plaint, amongst other allegations; the plaintiff – respondent has alleged in paras 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 as under:
9- ;g fd foi{kh ds firk us iSVh'kuj ds firk dks rax o ijs'kku djus dh xjt ls fnukad 30-12-91 dks xq.Ms Hkstdj geyk djok;kA ftldh fjiksVZ iSVh'kuj ds firk us lSDVj&3 jkmjdsyk ds Fkkus esa iathd`r djk;h FkhA
10- ;g fd foi{kh us iSVh'kuj ds iq= ds ukedj.k dh jLe Hkh dVd esa vius firk ds ?kj ij lEiUu djk;h ftlesa foi{kh iSVh'kuj vFkok mlds ekrk&firk dks bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ lwpuk ugha nhA
11- ;g fd foi{kh ds firk us lu~ 1991 ds vkf[kj esa iSVh'kuj ds firk ds f[kykQ lh0ch0vkbZ0 esa esy tsy gksus ds dkj.k >wBs eqdnes dk;e djkus ds fy;s ncko cuk;k] ml le; ,l0ih0lh0ch0vkbZ Hkqous'oj Jh Ádk'k feJk rSukr FksA ftUgksaus dksbZ lcwr u ikrs gq, iSVh'kuj ds firk th ds f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha djh FkhA
14- ;g fd foi{kh us o"kZ 1991 esa tc iSVh'kuj dh rSukrh crkSj ,0,l0ih0 FkhA rc d;Zw ds nkSjku foi{kh iSVh'kuj ds ikl vk;h vkSj ,d jkr #ddj iSVh'kuj ij ncko fn;k fd iSVh'kuj mls okfil mlds firk ds ?kj ij NksM+dj vk;s] iSVh'kuj us ckeqf'dy NqV~Vh ysdj foi{kh dks mlds firk ds ?kj ij NksM+dj vk;kA
15- ;g fd iSVh'kuj vc esjB Vªsfuax lsUVj gkiqM+ jksM+ esjB esa rSukr gS fnukad 17-12-99 dks foi{kh us iSVh'kuj ds edku ls leLr lkeku Mcy csM] vyekjh] Qzht] dwyj vkfn dks Vªd esa Hkjokdj vius lkFk fnYyh fLFkr edku xzsVj dSyk'k esa ys x;h] Vªd ds lkFk lkeku pढ+okus o mrjokus esa dfoUnz xkSre gSM0 dkaLVscy] rkysoj flag] LVSuks usiky flag] lh0,y0Mh0 jktu flag o ohj flag Qksyksoj Vªd ds lkFk esa x;s Fks o iM+kSlh vuUr vxzoky iq= fou; vxzoky edku la0 ,y0&948 us foi{kh dks lkeku Vªd esa Hkjrs o ys tkrs gq, ns[kk gSA
16- ;g fd mijksDr ifLFkfr;ksa esa iSVh'kuj dk foi{kh ds lkFk&lkFk jguk ukeqefdu gSA iSfV'kuj o foi{kh ds lkFk jgus ij fdlh Hkh le; dksbZ Hkh nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gks ldrh gSA
17- ;g fd foi{kh us iSVh'kuj rFkk mlds ekrk&firk dks ijs'kku ,oa csbZTtrh djus dh fu;r ls fnukad 27-03-2000 dks efgyk Fkkus] lnj y[kuÅ esa ,d fjiksVZ ØkbZe u0 17@2000 ij v0 /kkjk 498,] 323] 506 vkbZ0ih0lh0 o 3@4 ngst ,DV ntZ dkj;h ftlesa foi{kh us iSVh'kuj ,oa ekrk&firk ij >wBs cscqfu;kn vkjksi yxk;sA bl rFkkdfFkr fjiksVZ esa foi{kh us iSVh'kuj ij pfj= ghurk dk vkjksi Hkh yxk;k tks fd loZFkk xyr cscqfu;
Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan
V. Bhagat v D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate
Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit
Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavati
Chanderkala Trivedi v. Dr S.P. Trivedi
Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena
Mangayakarasi Vs. M Yuvaraj (2020) 3 SCC 786
N.G. Dastane (Dr.) v. S. Dastane
Naveen Kohli versus Neelu Kohli
Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta
R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha
Cruelty and desertion must be proven with specific evidence; irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Cruelty in matrimonial law encompasses both physical and mental aspects, with the latter requiring a cumulative assessment of conduct that causes reasonable apprehension of harm to the aggrieved spou....
Cruelty in matrimonial law is assessed based on its impact on the aggrieved spouse, requiring a subjective evaluation of circumstances rather than a mere objective standard.
Cruelty in matrimonial law is subjective and must be assessed based on its impact on the aggrieved spouse, rather than rigid standards or expectations.
Cruelty in matrimonial law encompasses both physical and mental aspects, with the impact on the aggrieved spouse being crucial for determining divorce.
Mental cruelty can justify divorce when one spouse's conduct causes reasonable apprehension of harm to the other, as established in this case.
False accusations and long-term separation can constitute mental cruelty, justifying divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.