Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 285
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.K. Gangele and D.K. Paliwal, JJ.
Indu Kushwah (Smt.) v. Manoj Singh Kushwah
First Appeal No.32 of 2011 (Gwalior) : against the judgment and decree of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior,
passed in Civil Suit No.226-A of 2009 HMA; Decided on 14.5.2013.
Pramod Gohadkar for appellant;
P.C. Chandil for respondent.
Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S.13 -- decree of divorce granted on ground of cruelty done by wife -- no straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters -- appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances -- cruelty by wife proved in aforesaid case -- decree of divorce justified -- however, wife entitled to permanent alimony.
Held : In view of aforesaid analysis, the instance No.1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of cruelty pleaded by the respondent are fully proved. False and wild allegations against the character of mother-in-law and father-in-law, make it graphically clear that she had really humiliated and caused mental cruelty. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, agony and frustration of the husband is obvious. It can be stated with certitude that the cumulative effect of the evidence brought on record clearly establish a sustained attitude of causing humiliation and calculated torture on the part of the wife to make the life of the husband miserable. The respondent felt humiliated both in private and in public life. Undoubtedly it created a dent in the reputation of entire family of the respondent which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life .... We have no scintilla of doubt that the appellant has committed cruelty which comes within the purview of provision of section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 2011(III) MPWN 41 (SC), (2006)4 SCC 558, (2007)4 SCC 511 and 2013(2) Supreme 80 followed.
fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 13 && iRuh }kjk dh xbZ Øwjrk ds vk/kkj ij fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh iznÙk && oSokfgd ekeyks es ekufld Øwjrk dk vo/kkj.k djus ds fy, dksbZ fuf’pr fu;e ;k fu;r ekunaM ugh && ekeys ds fof’k”V rF;ks rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ks ds vk/kkj ij bldk ewY;kdau djuk ekeys ij vf/kfu.kZ; djus dk leqfpr ekxZ gksxk && iwoksZDr ekeys es iRuh }kjk Øwjrk lkfcr && fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh U;k;laxr && rFkkfi] iRuh LFkk;h fuokZg O;; dh gdnkjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr fo’ys”k.k dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, izR;FkhZ }kjk vfHkopu fd, gq, Øwjrk ds mnkgj.k Ø-1] 5] 6] 7 rFkk 8 iw.kZr% lkfcr gSA lkl rFkk ‘olqj ds pfj= ds fo:) feF;k rFkk fujadq’k vfHkdFku lqLi”V :Ik ls ;g Li”V djrs gS fd mlus okLro es vieku rFkk ekufld Øwjrk dkfjr dh FkhA ifr dh xgu osnuk] fujk’kk] O;Fkk rFkk dqaBk dh Hkkouk Li”V gSSA ;g fu’p; ds lkFk dgk tk ldrk gS fd vfHkys[k ij yk, x, lk{; dk lap;h izHkko Li”V :i ls ifr dk thou d”Viw.kZ cukus ds fy, iRuh dh vksj ls vieku rFkk lqfopkfjr mRihM+u dkfjr djus dk lrr n`f”Vdks.k LFkkfir djrk gSA izR;FkhZ us O;fDrxr rFkk lkoZtfud nksuks thou es vieku dk vuqHko fd;kA fuLlansg blus izR;FkhZ ds laiw.kZ dqVqac dh izfr”Bk ij vk?kkr yxk;k tks u dsoy thou dk vko’;d rRo gS cfYd thou dk fo’kq) [ktkuk rFkk lokZf/kd ewY;oku b= gSA ---------ges jÙkhHkj Hkh lansg ugh gS fd vihykFkhZ us Øwjrk dh Fkh tks fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh /kkjk 13¼1½] ¼1d½ ds mica/k dh ifjf/k ds Hkhrj vkrh gSA 2011¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~Lk 41 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼2006½4 ,l lh lh 558] ¼2007½4 ,l lh lh 511 rFkk 2013¼2½ lqizhe 80 vuqlfjrA
Paliwal, J. -- 1. Appellant-wife has preferred this appeal under section 19 of the Family Court Act being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No.266-A/2009 HMA on 6.1.2011, whereby decree of divorce has been granted in favor of respondent-husband.
2. The respondent/husband filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pleading that his marriage with the appellant- wife was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites on 18.5.1995. After marriage on the very first night, appellant told the respondent that she was not ready to marry with him because she in love of one Pinki Gurjar and wanted to marry with him. Despite insistence by the respondent, appellant did not allow him to have sexual intercourse. It is further pleaded that after 8 months of marriage on 18th January, 1996 the appellant gave birth to a male child. When the respondent asked, appellant replied that child is of Pinki Gurjar. It is further pleaded that father of the respondent is a bank officer and have a reputation in the society, therefore, the respondent, did not disclose the above fact to anybody. It is further pleaded that appellant used to leave her matrimonial home without seeking any permission and used to return after 6-6 hours. On being asked, the appellant used to say thatshe is a modern girl and if any interference is made, she will lodge a report. The appellant used to talk to some unknown boys for hours on mobile phone. When objected, she used to quarrel with the respondent. It is further stated that once appellant threw hot tea on the face of the respondent and used to give threat of throwing acid on respondent. On 24.11.2008 father of the appellant and appellant gave threatening that appellant is not willing to live with the respondent and asked 2/3rd of his salary and two rooms along with latrine, bathroom and kitchen in the house. Appellant is not discharging her matrimonial obligations for the last 12 years and behaving with cruelty with the respondent. By amendment it has been pleaded that wife has made false allegations against father and mother of the respondent that father in law used to say her mother in law that respondent is not his son and also that mother in law remained out of home for hours at late night with some persons. Due to the conduct of mother in law, the reputation of appellant has been tarnished in the society. It is pleaded that due to these unfounded and wild allegations against the character of his mother, respondent feels humiliated and in such circumstances it is not possible for the respondent to live with the appellant. It is prayed that their marriage be dissolved.
3. Appellant-wife denied the allegations levelled against her and stated that she does not know Pinki Gurjar. She belongs to a reputed family. She never told that she loves Pinki Gurjar and child is born to her from Pinki Gurjar. It is pleaded that respondent and his father are habitual drinker. Whenever quarrel took place between the father and mother of the respondent, father of the respondent used to say that respondent-Manoj is not his son. It is further stated that appellant never left the matrimonial home, but mother of the respondent had left the house and did not return up to late night. The respondent and his father threatened the appellant that if mother of the respondent did not return, she would be killed. It is further stated that at about 11:00 p.m. two persons came on motorcycle and left the mother of the respondent. When the appellant objected the conduct of mother in law to the respondent, then she was beaten. On 8.11.2008 mother of the respondent left the house with two unknown persons and came back after two hours. It is further pleaded that father of the respondent was having evil eye on her and also used to bring women in her matrimonial home for satisfying his lust. When appellant objected, then he replied that he h
