Bagish Kumar Mishra vs Rinki Mishra - 2024 Supreme(All) 1687

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1687

RAJAN ROY, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Bagish Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Rinki Mishra – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Alok Tripathi, Anju Agarwal, Hari Om Pandey, Meena Bajpai, Nisha Srivastava, Shailesh Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Rajneesh Kumar Verma, Surya Prakash Singh

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the court examined the grounds for divorce on the basis of mental and physical cruelty. The court emphasized that allegations of cruelty must demonstrate persistent and severe conduct that makes it impossible for the parties to continue living together. General allegations or trivial irritations are insufficient to establish cruelty as a ground for divorce.

In this case, the court found that the appellant's allegations were largely omnibus and lacked specific instances of severe or persistent cruelty. The court noted that the allegations of quarrels, false complaints, and minor disputes did not meet the threshold of mental cruelty necessary for divorce. Moreover, the appellant's own admissions and evidence indicated that the relationship was not so deteriorated as to justify a decree of divorce on these grounds.

The court also highlighted that the appellant's claims of cruelty were contradicted by the findings in the domestic violence case, which awarded compensation and maintenance to the respondent, indicating a different perception of the relationship's dynamics. The absence of any lodged complaints or FIRs regarding the specific incident of alleged assault further weakened the appellant's case.

In conclusion, the court held that the allegations of cruelty were not sufficiently grave or specific to warrant a divorce, and thus the findings of the Family Court were upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment underscores that for cruelty to be a valid ground for divorce, it must be demonstrated through specific, persistent, and severe conduct, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1) Heard Mrs. Nisha Srivastava, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Mr. Surya Prakash Singh, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

(2) This appeal under Section 19 read with Section 28 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellant/ husband, assailing the judgment and order dated 06.11.2020 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, whereby Petition No. 773 of 2016 (Computer Registration No. 854 of 2019) filed by the appellant/ husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking grant of a decree of divorce has been dismissed.

(3) The facts, in nutshell, are that appellant-Dr. Bagesh Kumar Mishra is the husband and respondent-Rinki Mishra is the wife. The matrimonial alliance was entered into between the parties as per Hindu rites and rituals in Devkali Temple Ayodhya on November 11, 2015.

(4) Appellant, Dr. Bagesh Kumar Mishra, had filed Petition No.773 of 2016 (Computer Registration No. 854 of 2019) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1955’) before the Family Court, Ayodhya, alleging therein that he was subjected to mental and phy