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

1999 Supreme(MP) 500

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. SRIVASTAVA, N. G. KARAMBELKAR
SUNEER SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
MADHURLATA SHARMA - Respondents
L. P. A. 206 Of 1998
Decided On : 07/29/1999

Advocates Appeared:
Mahesh Haswani, V.K.BHARDVAJ

Concurrent findings of fact by two courts on the issues of cruelty, desertion, and second marriage in a divorce case will not be interfered with by an appellate court unless sufficient cause is shown.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 13(1)(I)(IA)(IB) - DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE - CRUELTY, DESERTION, AND SECOND MARRIAGE - CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY TWO COURTS - INTERFERENCE BY APPELLATE COURT - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

Wife filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty, desertion, and second marriage by the husband. The husband denied the allegations and claimed that the wife was unwilling to live with him due to her superior official and financial status.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court and the High Court found that the wife had established the allegations of cruelty, desertion, and second marriage. The courts held that the husband's conduct amounted to mental torture and cruelty, and that the second marriage was an act of misconduct and continuous desertion for more than two years.

Issues: 1. Whether the wife had established the allegations of cruelty, desertion, and second marriage. 2. Whether the husband's conduct amounted to mental torture and cruelty. 3. Whether the second marriage was an act of misconduct and continuous desertion for more than two years.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The courts relied on the evidence presented by the wife, including documentary and oral evidence, to establish the allegations of cruelty, desertion, and second marriage. 2. The courts held that the husband's conduct, including subjecting the wife to taunts and threats of a second marriage, asking her to consume a poisonous drug, and physically abusing her, amounted to mental torture and cruelty. 3. The courts held that the second marriage was an act of misconduct and continuous desertion for more than two years, as the husband had been living with his second wife and children for several years.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of divorce granted by the trial court was upheld.

N. G. KARAMBELKAR, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT/defendant-HUSBAND Dr. Suneer Sharma has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8-5-1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 220/97 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in case No. 576-A/91.

( 2 ) FACTS not disputed are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 16-11-1984 at Kherapati Colony, Gwalior. At the time of marriage, appellant was possessing M. B. B. S. degree and the respondent-wife was possessing post graduate degree in medical science. At that time, appellant was serving as a medical officer in Co-operative Sugar Factory at Panipat. In the same year the respondent wife got an appointment as medical officer in N. F. L. Panipat where she was also allotted an official residence in the campus of the hospital. The couple lived peacefully for a period of about 2 years in the ancestral residence of the appellant at Panipat. However, when after a lapse of 2 years, the respondent did not conceive, she was subjected to number of medical tests and investigations and as per reports there were little chances of her conceiving. The respondent is living separate in her official residence since 3-9-1989. Father and Kusum Sharma, unmarried sister of the appellant were residing at Delhi, where the unmarried sister was serving as a teacher.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT/wife filed suit under Section 13 (1) (i) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on 12-9-1991. She alleged that after two years of their married life, when chances of her conceiving a child were found remote, her husband, mother-in-law Shakuntala Devi and unmarried sister began to ill-treat her on this count and were repeatedly taunting her that she was a Banih (a barren woman incapable of conceiving a baby) and the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law were often threatening that they would go for a second marriage of the appellant/defendant. The mother-in-law went to the extent that she one day asked the respondent-plaintiff to consume a pill named 'quick Phos' a poisonous drug in order to end her life and proposed that she would keep the pill in the bathroom where the respondent could conveniently consume it. The idea behind the proposal was to bring the life of the respondent to an end so that appellant could go for a second marriage without any problem. By this incident, the respondent was gravely hurt mentally. She, therefore, informed her mother and her mother came to her house at Panipat. The appellant, his mother and sister allegedly misbehaved with the mother of the respondent and on being objected by the respondent, she was subjected to beating in the presence ofher mother and both were turned out forcibly on 3-9-1989. Thereafter, respondent never lived with the appellant. The respondent on her part went many a times to the house of the appellant and pleaded him and her mother-in-law not go for a second marriage of the appellant, but they did not respond and ultimately the appellant is reported to have married another lady named Pinki Bhaskar, somewhere near 30-4-1990. Pinki Bhaskar was renamed as Seema Sharma after her marriage with the appellant. She gave birth to first child in Feb. 1991, and thereafter two more issues were born from the wedlock and all the three issues are presently living with appellant and Seema Sharma. It was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that because of the cruelty both mental and physical meted out to her by the appellant and his mother and sister and also because the appellant had contracted a second marriage and lastly because she had been deserted for a continuous period of more than two years, it was not possible for her to continue her matrimonial relationship with the appellant and wanted her marriage to be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

( 4 ) THE appellant-defendant resisted the claim of the respondent-plaintiff denying all allegations against him and his mother and sister. He emp








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