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

1995 Supreme(MP) 688

1996 JLJ 42
Tej Shankal, J.
Vimla Ladkani (Smt.) v. Dr. Chandra Prakash Ladkani
F.A. No. 67 of 1994, against the judgment and decree passed by Smt.
Manjusha Namjoshi, 7 Additional Judge to the District Judge, Gwalior, in
Civil Suit No. 578-A of 1991, Decided on 31.7.1995.

Advocates:
N.K. Modi for appellant; K.N. Gupta for respondent.

Headnote:(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13 (1A) -- ‘cruelty‘ -- postulates such treatment to petitioner which causes a reasonable apprehension of harm if the petitioner continues to live with the other spouse.

        ‘Cruelty‘ postulates a treatment to the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the petitioner‘s mind that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other spouse. It need not be physical violence administered by defaulting party. The cruelty may be either physical or mental. The question of mental cruelty should‘ be answered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status of the parties, environment of the parties, etc. [Para 8]

        (2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S.13 (1A) -- wife being visited by another man -- even going out of station with him -- apprhension in husband‘s mind about their illicit relations cannot be ruled out -- it is mental cruelty towards husband. [Para 8]

        (3) Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 -- S.13 (1A) -- false report of dowry demand against husband -- case registered -- husband tried to be arrested -- case of cruelty made out. [Para 9]

        (4) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13 (1A) -- marriage dead because of so many cruelties to petitioner -- chances of reconciliation no longer existent -divorce is the only solution. (1995) 2 SCC 7 followed. [Paras 6 & 11]

        ¼1½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13 ¼1d½ & ^Øwjrk* & vthZnkj dks ,sls crkZo dh mi/kkj.kk gS ftl ls fd ;fn og ifr ;k iRuh ds lkFk jguk tkjh j[ks rks vigkfu dh ;qfDr;qDr vk"kadk gksA

        ^Øwjrk* esa vthZnkj ds çfr ,slh Øwjrk ds lkFk crkZo mi/kkfjr gS ftl ls vthZnkj ds eu esa ;qfDr;qDr vk"kadk gks fd ifr ;k iRuh ds lkFk jguk vthZnkj ds fy, vigkfudj ;k {kfrdj gksxkA og O;fDrØeh i{kdkj }kjk ‘kkjhfjd fgalk gksuk vko";d ugha gSA Øwjrk ‘kkjhfjd ;k ekufld gks ldrh gSA ekufld Øwjrk ds ç’u dk mÙkj] i{kdkj ftl fof"k"V lekt ds gSa] mlds nkaiR;&ca/ku ds lfUu;e] muds lkekftd ewY;] i{kdkjksa dh gSfl;r] i{kdkjksa dh ifjfLFkfr;k¡ vkfn dks n`f"V esa j[krs gq, fudkyk tkuk pkfg,A ¿iSjk 8

        ¼2½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13 ¼1d½ & iRuh ds ikl ,d vU; O;fDr dk vkuk&tkuk & og mlds lkFk uxj ds ckgj Hkh tkrh jgh & ifr ds eu esa muds v;qDr laca/k dh vk"kadk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & og ifr ds çfr ekufld Øwjrk gSA ¿iSjk 8

        ¼3½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13¼1d½ & ifr ds fo#) ngst dh ek¡x feF;k fjiksVZ ekeyk jftLVj gqvk & ifr dks fxj¶rkj djus dk ç;kl Hkh gqvk & Øwjrk dk ekeyk curk gSA ¿iSjk 9

        ¼4½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13 ¼1&d½ & ifr ds çfr bruh Øwjrk ds dkj.k fookg fuLrst & iqufeZyki dh dksbZ laHkkouk ugha & fookg&foPNsn gh ,dek= gy gSA ¼1955½ 2 ,l lh lh 7 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 6 ,oa 11

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been preferred by the wife against her husband against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1994, passed by Smt. Manjusha Namjoshi, the then Seventh Additional Judge to the District Judge, Gwalior, whereby a decree for divorce was passed against the appellant on the petition of the respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. Admittedly, the parties were married according to Hindu rites at Gwalior on 4.12.1977 and out of the union, three sons, namely, Pankaj, Kapil and Ravi were born. The relationship between the parties was cordial and the couple was regarded as a respectable family. At the time of marriage, the petitioner's mother-in-law was residing at Nai Sadak, Lashkar, but later on, she started living in the first noor of the house of the petitioner which he tolerated in order to avoid any unpleasantness. One Mohan Sindhi used to visit the house of the respondent's mother. Respondent too had developed great intimacy with him. Respondent had a good physique and was also beautiful. She was employed in the U.Co. Bank, High Court Road Branch, Gwalior, as a Clerk. Mohan Sindhi alias Teku has got bad reputation and is involved in unsocial activities and had a bad character. He has an evil eye on the respondent. Respondent was also attracted towards him. He used to visit the house of the respondent's mother practically daily in the night and used to sit there for long and used to call the respondent also. Sometimes respondent herself, out of her own accord, used to go to her mother's portion and chat for long. They also cut jokes and indulged in obscene talks. The petitioner forbade her several times and also called her, but she gave a dry reply and continued to talk with Mohan Sindhi till late at night. Thus, there was great apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. Inspite of his insistence, the respondent did not mend herself. She was not ready to hear him. The respondent ignored the petitioner's old mother as well as the petitioner and also insulted him before Mohan Sindhi. She also specifically refused to have marital relations. The petitioner moved the Pujya Sindhi Hindu General Panchayat in which all concerned including Mohan Sindhi were made to understand, but to no effect. On 1.2.1991, at about 12.00 in the night, Mohan Sindhi alias Teku called the petitioner and abused him. He was also beaten. A knife was kept on his chest and he was threatened because he had made a complaint in the Sindhi Panchayat and insulted him. When the petitioner asked the respondent, she said that whatsoever Mohan Sindhi was doing was correct. The respondent also lodged a report on 26.4.1991 in Mahila Thana, Padav against the petitioner and his mother on wrong allegations which caused a great harassment to him and he had to obtain bail. The respondent and her mother got a pamphlet in the name of "Papa Sudhar Jaiye", published and got it distributed in the High Court building as well as Phalka Bazar where the petitioner has his clinic and at several other places in order to insult him. It brought bad name to him. Due to the activities of the respondent, he received mental agony and his life had become a moving dead-body. The relations of the respondent with Mohan Sindhi were so developed that they started a great mental tension. He was not in a position to carryon his medical profession as well. He was also defamed in the Society. On 27th August, 1990, she left the respondent petitioner's house alongwith her articles and sons and started living with her mother in the first floor without any justifiable cause. She was not performing her marital obligations though he had been ready to keep her, but he failed. A notice was also given to respondent, but she did not obey.

3. The respondent denied the allegations of the petitioner and alleged that the treatment of the petitioner and his mother was cruel. She did not accept the illegal demands and hence, this petition

















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