Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saumitra Dayal Singh, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, JJ.
Ashok Jha – Appellant
Versus
Pratibha Jha –Respondent
First Appeal No. - 149 of 2020
Decided On : 13-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rahul Sahai, Rajeev Kumar
For the Respondent: In Person

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, coupled with the filing of false complaints and serious disputes between the parties, can constitute cruelty and provide grounds for dissolution of the marriage.

Headnote:
Cruelty - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section-13(1)
Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a divorce petition under Section-13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking to dissolve his marriage with the respondent. The appellant alleged that the respondent had repeatedly lodged false criminal and civil cases against him, leading to a complete irretrievable breakdown of their marriage.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the appellant could not clearly establish cruelty on the part of the respondent in their day-to-day life. However, the Court acknowledged that the respondent had lodged false or unproven criminal cases against the appellant, and both parties had serious disputes about properties. The Court concluded that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, and there was no chance of reconciliation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant could prove cruelty on the part of the respondent to seek dissolution of the marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the conduct of both parties, the filing of false complaints, and the unbridgeable distance between the parties as factors contributing to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Court also referred to legal principles from previous judgments, emphasizing that mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses, insults, and the unbridgeable distance between the parties.
Final Decision: The Court dissolved the marriage between the parties on grounds of cruelty suffered by the appellant at the hands of the respondent and due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The appellant was directed to pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony within three months.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt Pratibha Jha, in person (respondent).

2. Present appeal was filed against the order dated 07.11.2019 of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-2, Ghaziabad passed in Matrimonial Case No.253 of 2014 (Ashok Jha Vs Smt. Pratibha Jha), by which application of the appellant under Section-13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955') for annulling the marriage of appellant and respondent was rejected.

3. The facts which give rise to the present case are that marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 19.06.2002. Two children were born out of their wedlock. The appellant filed application under Section-13(1) of the Act, 1955 on 15.02.2014 for dissolving marriage of the appellant and respondent. This application was allowed ex parte by order dated 03.08.2016 and marriage of the parties was dissolved. After the knowledge of the aforesaid ex parte divorce decree dated 03.08.2016, the respondent filed a recall application on 22.11.2017, which was allowed and ex parte order dated 03.08.2016 was recalled by order dated 24.05.2018 and the divorce petition was restored at its original number. Thereafter, the respondent had also filed her written statement denying the allegation of divorce petition. Subsequently, the appellant had also filed an amendment application to make amendments in the divorce petition, which was allowed on 27.05.2019 by which the appellant brought on record certain new facts regarding criminal cases lodged by the respondent against the appellant, during the pendency of the divorce petition but respondent did not file any written statement after the amendment of the divorce petition. Apart from filing documentary evidence, the appellant examined himself as PW-1, Ram Shankar as PW-2 and Shailendra Singh as PW-3. Respondent also filed several documents and examined herself as DW-1. Learned Family Judge, framed following issues on the basis of pleadings of parties :

^^1-D;k oknh okni= esa fd;s x;s vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij Áfrokfnuh ls fookg foPNsn dj ikus dk vf/kdkj gS \

2- D;k oknh vU; vuqrks"k] ;fn dksbZ gks] ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**

4. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Judge rejected the divorce petition of the appellant on the ground that the appellant could not prove cruelty on the part of the respondent.

Contention of learned counsel for the appellant :

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below failed to consider the evidence on record while passing the impugned order. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent had lodged the following four false criminal cases against the appellant:

“1. Case Crime No.239 of 2014, FIR No.255, Police Station-Indrapuram, Ghaziabad under Sections-498A, 420, 506, 507 IPC.

2. Case Crime No.17 of 2018, Police Station-Kalyanpuri Delhi, under Section-377 IPC.

3. Case Crime No.2955 of 2018, Police Station-Indrapuram, under Sections-147, 323, 379, 427, 506, 507 IPC (State Vs. Pratibha Jha).

4. Case Crime No.1828 of 2017, under Sections-392, 336, 338 IPC.”

6. The concerned criminal Court acquitted the appellant, and a closure report was submitted by the police and apart from this, the respondent has also filed civil suit no.605 of 2018 (Smt. Pratibha Jha Vs. Ashok Jha) for permanent injunction, which was also dismissed on 10.01.2019 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ghaziabad and several false complaints were also sent by respondent to Senior Police and Administrative Officer against appellant.

7. The above conduct establishes that the respondent, just to harass and defame him, had repeatedly lodged criminal and civil cases against him, this continued act amounts to cruelty. Learned counsel also submitted for the appellant that the Court below had also failed to consider that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 had prove