Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 47
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.C. Garg and Sheel Nagu, JJ.
Mamta Bhardwaj v. Madhusudan Bhardwaj
First Appeal No.159 of 2013 (Gwalior) : against the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2013, passed by Principal Judge of Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.117-A/2007; Decided on 16.1.2015
Appellant in person;
Sarvesh Sharma for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Ss.13(1)(ia) and 9 -- application for divorce by husband -- based on cruelty -- counter-claim by wife for restitution of conjugal rights -- she made allegation of cruelty against husband and his family members -- she also filed complaint under section 498A of IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -- cruelty on behalf of husband not proved -- but cruelty and warst mental cruelty against husband and his sister caused by wife proved -- in such circumstances -- decree of divorce rightly passed -- counter-claim also rightly refused. [Paras 32, 36, 39 & 40
(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S.13(1)(ia) -- cruelty -- means of -- mental cruelty also include in it -- such cruelty may be ground for divorce -- false allegation made by wife against husband and his family members -- she made allegation against husband -- that he having illicit relationship with his sister -- by such allegations -- mental cruelty caused to husband -- decree of divorce rightly passed.
Held : There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration.
Besides the specific act of mental cruelty making false allegations against the sister of the respondent, it is also matter on record that the appellant filed various such complaint under section 498A of IPC under Domestic Violence Act. In those proceedings, the appellant even opposed the bail application went to the extent of filing revisions against the grant of bail to the respondent and his family members. Such conduct on the part of the appellant further constitute mental cruelty.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the lower Court holding that the appellant was guilty of inflicting the cruelty upon the husband including mental cruelty of the worst kind. In such situation, the lower Court was justified in dissolving the marriage between the parties by decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
In such circumstances asking the respondent-husband to live with the appellant-wife in the matrimonial house as husband and wife by passing a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for by the appellant in the counter claim also, was rightly refused. AIR 1998 SC 121, AIR 202 SC 591, AIR 2002 SC 2582, AIR 2006 SC 1662 and (2013)5 SCC 226 followed. AIR 1986 Cal. 150 relied on.
[Paras 39 & 40
¼1½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 13¼1½¼1d½ rFkk 9 && ifr }kjk fookg&foPNsn ds fy, vkosnu && Øwjrk ij vk/kkfjr && iRuh }kjk nkaiR; vf/kdkjks ds izR;kLFkkiu ds fy, izfrnkok && mlus ifr ,oa mlds dqVqac ds lnL;ksa ds fo:) Øwjrk dk vfHkdFku fd;k && mlus Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu rFkk ngst izfr”ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 3 rFkk 4 ds v/khu ifjokn Hkh izLrqr fd, && ifr dh vksj ls Øwjrk lkfcr ugha && fdarq iRUkh }kjk ifr rFkk mldh cgu ds fo:) Øwjrk rFkk fud`”Vre ekufld Øwjrk dkfjr fd;k tkuk lkfcr && ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa && fookg&foPNsn Øwjrk rFkk fud`”Vre ekufld Øwjrk dkfjr fd;k tkuk lkfcr && ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa es && fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh lgh&gh ikfjr dh xbZ && izfrnkok Hkh lgh&gh vLohd`r fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 32] 36] 39 ,oa 40
¼2½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 13¼1½¼1d½ && Øwjrk && ls vfHkizsr && ekufld Øwjrk Hkh blesa lfEefyr gS && ,slh Øwjrk fookg&foPNsn dk vk/kkj gks ldrh gS && iRuh }kjk ifr rFkk mlds dqVaqCk ds lnL;ksa ds fo:) feF;k vfHkdFku fd, x, && mlus vius ifr ds fo:) vfHkdFku fd;k && fd og viuh cgu ds lkFk voS/k lac/k j[krk gS && ,sls vfHkdFkuksa ls && ifr dks ekufld Øwjrk dkfjr gqbZ && fookg&foPNsn dh fM+Øh lgh&gh ikfjr dh xbZA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fookg fo”k;d ekeyksa esa ekufld Øwjrk vo/kkj.k djus ds fy, dksbZ lh/kk lw= ;k fu;r izkpky dHkh ugha gks ldrkA mi;qZDr ckrksa ij fopkj djrs le; U;k;fu.kZ; djus ds fy, foosdiw.kZ vkSj leqfpr rjhdk blds fof’k”V rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij ewY;kadu djuk gksxkA
blds vfrfjDr ekufld Øwjrk dk fofufnZ”V dk;Z izR;FkhZ dh cgu ds fo:) feF;k vfHkdFku djuk gSA ;g ekeyk Hkh vfHkys[k ij gS fd vihykFkhZ us vusd ,sls ifjokn Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu RkFkk ?kjsyw fgalk vf/kfu;e ds v/khu izLrqr fd,A mu dk;Zokfg;ks esa] izR;FkhZ ds tekur ds vkosnu dk Hkh izR;FkhZ vkSj mlds dqVac ds lnL;ksa dks tekur iznku djus ds fo:) iqujh{k.k izLrqr djus dh lhek rd fojks/k fd;k FkkA vihykFkhZ dk ,slk vkpj.k iqu% ekufld Øwjrk xfBr djrk gSA
mi;qZDr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] fupys U;k;ky; }kjk ;g Bgjkrs gq, fudkys x, fu”d”kZ es fd vihykFkhZ vius ifr ij fu”d`”Ve ekufld Øwjrk dks lfEefyr dj Øwjrk igq¡pkus dh nks”kh Fkh bles eSa dksbZ nkScZY; ugh ikrkA ,slh fLFkfr es] fupyk U;k;ky; fganw fookg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½¼1d½ ds v/khu fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh }kjk i{kdkjks dks chp fookg fo?kfVr djus esa U;k;ksfpr FkkA
bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izR;FkhZ𝔦 ls vihykFkhZ&iRuh ds lkFk ifr&iRuh ds :i esa naifŸk x`g esa lkFk&lkFk jgus ds fy, fuosnu djuk tSlk fd vihykFkhZ }kjk fganw fookg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 9 ds v/khu izfrnkok izLrqr dj nkaiR; vf/kdkjks ds izR;kLFkkiu dh izkFkZuk dh gS] mls Hkh lgh&gh vLohd`r fd;k gSA , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 121] , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 591] , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 2582] , vkb vkj 2006 ,l lh 1662 rFkk ¼2013½5 ,l lh lh 226 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1986 dy- 150 voyafcrA
Garg, J. -- 1. This order shall dispose of this first appeal preferred by the appellant-Mamta Bhardwaj (wife) against her husband Madhusudan Bhardwaj assailing the order passed by the Family Court under section 19(1) of the Family Court Act whereby, the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.117A/07 under Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-Madhusudan Bhardwaj (hereinafter referred to as the “husband”), seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant decreed the same in favour of the respondent-husband and passed a decree dated 28th June 2013 dissolving the marriage between the parties by means of a decree of divorce.
2. According to the appellant, the judgment of the lower Court is not sustainable for the reasons that the appellant has failed to prove allegations on merit. His witnesses have not supported his case. There are number of contradictions in their statement. The main allegation made against his sister having illicit relationship with the respondent has also not been proved. It is further submitted, that it has been brought on record by the appellant in her evidence that it was the respondent and his family members who were treating the appellant with cruelty and in fact the case under section 498A of IPC was also registered against him because there was substance in the allegations made against the respondent and his family members. It is further submitted that even the order of maintenance passed under section 125 of CrPC has not been complied with.
3. According to her the main controversy arose between the parties only because she could not give birth to a child. It is however the matter on record that the first petition for divorce was filed by the respondent against the appellant just after six months of the marriage, of course it was dismissed as pre-mature. The allegations of the respondent have been taken note of by the lower Court in the impugned judgment in para 2 as follows :
^^fookg ds ckn vukosfndk vkosnd ds fuokl LFkku 3] ljLorh uxj esa nkaiR; laca/kksa dk fuoZgu djus gsrq vkbZ Fkh rFkk vkosnd ,oa vukosfndk ds nkaiR; laca/kks ls dksbZ larku mRiUu ugh gqbZ gSA vkosnd ds ifjokj esa vkosnd ds vfrfjDr mldh cgu ,oa mlds nks cPps rFkk ek¡ fuokl djrh gSA vukosfndk }kjk ‘kknh ds i’pkr~ ls gh vkosnd ij ;g ncko Mkyk tk jgk gS fd vkosnd viuh ek¡ ,oa cgu dks mDr Hkou ls gVkdj fdjk, ds edku esa Hkst ns rFkk mDr edku vukosfndk ds fgr esa laikfnr djk nsA vkosnd }kjk vukosfndk dks le>k, tkus ij vukosfndk }kjk vkosnd ,oa mldh ek¡&cgu ds lkFk Øwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj dj ekjihV] xkyh&xykSp dj ekufld Dys’k dh fLFkfr fufeZr dj nsrh FkhA vkosnd }kjk vukosfndk dks le>kbZ’k nsus dk dksbZ vlj ugha gqvk vkSj mlds }kjk izkajHk ls gh HkkbZ&cgu ds fj’rs dks ‘kadkLin utjksa ls ns[kk tkrk gSA vukosfndk }kjk vkosnd dks dqŸkk] dehuk] uhp [kkunku dk dgdj viekfur fd;k tkrk jgk rFkk ek¡&cgu dks Hkh dqfr;k] gjketknh tSlh xanh&xanh xkfy;k¡ nh tkrh gSA fnukad 19-12-2006 dks ‘kke dks 7 cts vukosfndk ,oa mlds ifjokj ds lnL; vkosnd ds ?kj vk, vkSj vkosnd dh ek¡ ,oa cgu ls dksjs dkxtks ij gLrk{kj djus gsrq dgk vkSj dgk fd os edku vukosfndk ds uke dj nsaA euk djuss ij mu yksxks us xkyh&xykSp fd;k rFkk vukosfndk us vkosnd ls mldh cgu ds lkFk voS/k laca/k gksus okyh ckr ?kj ds ckgj fudydj fPkYyk&fpYykdj dgh ftlds dkj.k vkosnd ds vkl&ikl ds iM+kSlh vkosnd ,oa mldh cgu dks ‘kadkLin utjksa ls ns[krs gSA vukosfndk us vkosnd ds psgjs ij uk[kwuks ls okj fd;kA ftlls vkosnd ds psgjs ij pksVs vkbZA mDr fnuakd dks gh vukosfndk ,oa mlds ifjokj okys vukosfndk dk lkeku e; tsojkr tks vkosnd dh vksj ls ‘kknh ds le; p<+k;k x;k Fkk vius lkFk ysdj pyh xbZA rRi’pkr~ fnuakd 27-12-2006 dks Hkh lqcg 10 cts vukosfndk ,oa mlds ifjokj ds yksx vkosnd ds ?kj vk, vkSj /kedh nh fd ;fn lkr fnu esa edku vukosfndk ds uke ugha fd;k rks iwjs ifjokj dks iqfyl dk;Zokgh esa tsy esa lM+ok nsaxs vkSj edku ij dCtk dj ysaxsA bldh f’kdk;r vkosnd }kjk iqfyl Fkkuk fo’ofo|ky; ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd] Xokfy;j dks fyf[kr es dhA blds ckn vkosnd }kjk vius vf/koDrk ds ek/;
