Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Dharamveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
Lajwanti Devi - Respondent
First Appeal No. 63 of 2014
Decided On : 24-08-2020
Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate, Siddhartha Sah, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the definition and impact of 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court's interpretation of mental cruelty in the context of matrimonial relations.
Headnote:
cruelty - divorce - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - V. Bhagat vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337, Manju Kumari Singh @ Smt. Manju vs. Avinash Kumar Singh, (2018) AIR SC 3629, A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi vs. Dr. B. V. Ravi M.D., (2014) 7 SCC 640, Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjeet Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706, K. Srinivas Rao vs. D. A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226, Harish Chandra Chilwal vs. Smt. Pushpa,2008 UD 107 - The court discussed the concept of 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and cited various judgments to define mental cruelty and its impact on matrimonial relations. The court concluded that the conduct of the respondent amounted to mental cruelty, entitling the appellant to a decree of divorce.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty, citing instances of abnormal behavior, insults, and threats by the respondent. The respondent denied the allegations and accused the appellant of harassment, drinking, and demanding dowry. The trial court dismissed the petition, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conduct of the respondent amounted to mental cruelty, justifying the dissolution of the marriage.
Issues: (1) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty? (2) Whether the petitioner treated the respondent for dowry? (3) Relief?
Ratio Decidendi: The court discussed the concept of 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and cited various judgments to define mental cruelty and its impact on matrimonial relations. The court concluded that the conduct of the respondent amounted to mental cruelty, entitling the appellant to a decree of divorce.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the marriage between the parties was dissolved. The court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, with no order as to costs. The respondent was given the option to seek maintenance in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant (husband) against the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Matrimonial Case No.50 of 2011 Dharamveer Singh vs. Smt. Lajwanti Devi, by which the learned Judge, Family Court declined to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to notice for deciding the appeal are: -
Admittedly, the appellant got married to the respondent in the month of April, 2008 at Pauri as per the Hindu rites. The appellant was working as Collection Amin at Chaubattakhal, District Pauri Garhwal, whereas the respondent was a house wife. Out of this wedlock, one daughter was borne on 22.06.2009. The daughter is living with the respondent.
3. On 26.04.2011, the appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955') on the ground of 'cruelty'.
4. The appellant, in his petition, pleaded following instances which, according to him, construed cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955 entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the respondent :-
(i) The first ground of cruelty was related to his wife's behaviour after the second day of marriage. It was alleged that her behaviour was abnormal. In the embarrassing situation, the appellant gave a phone call to the family members of her parental house. Her two brothers came and took the respondent with them. She did not turn up for another three months. During that period, the appellant visited her parental house but her behaviour remained unsound. The appellant told her family members that he wanted to take some medical advice but they told that they were treating her in a private hospital at Saharanpur since long back.
(ii) The second ground of cruelty was that after three months of their marriage, he went to her parental house and on his efforts, the respondent came to the village of the appellant in the month of August, 2008 but again her behaviour became unsound. She used to misbehave with mother and other family members of the appellant. Being aggrieved from behaviour of the respondent, and since the respondent had spoiled the family atmosphere, the respondent was left at her parental house in the month of November, 2008.
(iii) The third ground of cruelty was that after November, 2008, the appellant regularly visited her parental house and requested her to live with him at his work place but the behaviour of the respondent became dangerous day by day. Sometimes, she was not even ready to talk with the appellant for days together. Sometimes, she told that she had a 40 rooms house at Pauri and men like the appellant were her servants in her house. This types of taunts were passed by her. The appellant felt insulted by this behaviour of the respondent. The respondent was not ready to come with the appellant on the ground that his service was in a village. In spite of these, the appellant provided her all facilities at her parental house.
(iv) During the period of the pregnancy of the respondent, the appellant, his father and sister-in-law of the respondent took her to a hospital. The appellant discharged all his duties as a husband. On 22.06.2009, the respondent gave birth to a girl. The naming ceremony (namkaran) of his daughter was done at the parental house of the respondent. All the expenses were incurred by the appellant. During that period, the cruelty of the respondent was still going on. The appellant requested the parents and other family members of the respondent that the appellant wanted to take his daughter and his wife with him. Thereafter, she came to his village Palli in the month of December, 2009, but she again went back to her parental house in the month of December, 2009 without informing anyone. During that period her indecent behaviour increased day by day. This was the fourth ground of cr
