Avinash Kumar Tripathi vs Priyanka Tripathi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu, Devnarayan Mishra, JJ.
Avinash Kumar Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Priyanka Tripathi – Respondent
First Appeal No. 1664 and 165 of 2018
Decided On : 13-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Tripathi, Mr. S. Bhamore and Mr. Gaurav Singhal - Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal and Mr. Yoshowardhan Jain - Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 41 R. 27 -- application to bring additional documents on record -- documents already on record when evidence of parties closed -- appellant had knowledge of documents -- some documents already on record but appellant did not exhibit them -- held -- additional documents cannot be taken on record at appellate stage, especially on failing to establish that such documents could not be produced earlier despite due diligence -- application dismissed. [Para 14]
(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13(1)(ia) -- cruelty -- appellant/husband never misbehaved with respondent wife -- as per her own statement, he was caring -- allegation of husband that wife accused him of consuming liquor, womanizing, and had suspicion about his character -- supported by witness who is judicial officer -- appellant also judicial officer, who would never attempt to malign his own image and reputation -- other persons affected by allegations also judicial officers -- mobile phone of appellant snatched by his father-in-law because of doubt on character -- wife and her parents, brother and sister came to official residence of appellant, assaulted and abused appellant -- judicial officers failed to pacify parties and police officers called -- dispute and assaulting ended when they intervened, whereafter police report lodged -- matter published in local newspaper -- wife complained to another police station that appellant, his parents, brother and his sister-in-law came to her home and demanded dowry, beat and abused wife -- no offence registered -- wife filed writ petition for direction to police authorities to register case -- wife and her father clearly stated that appellant was not present on date of incident but they made him a party in writ petition and demanded that FIR registered against appellant also -- thereafter wife lodged FIR against appellant and his family members -- filed protest application when appellant filed anticipatory bail application -- stated during examination-in-chief that her father gave appellant Rs. 15 lacs to purchase car -- stated in cross-examination that she has forgotten whether this money was given or not -- wife and her father unable to disclose from where they got money for dowry -- not single document submitted to show that any ornaments, car or electronic appliances were purchased by father of wife -- appellant exhibited documents of purchase of car and electronic appliances -- it is established that there was no dispute of dowry demand -- when asked specifically why FIR was lodged so late when dowry was demanded from beginning, wife stated that appellant threw her out from his home and thereafter she lodged report and if husband had not thrown her out, she would not have lodged it -- wife made complaint to senior authorities of appellant so that he may be terminated from service and sent to jail -- continuously filed cases, sought judicial enquiry, made various complaints to higher authorities about conduct of appellant -- left no stone unturned to embarrass, harass, intimidate, abuse and belittle -- ample instances of cruelty pleaded in plaint -- subsequent incidents also occurred after filing of divorce petition -- acts/conduct of wife constitute cruelty -- cannot be treated as normal wear and tear of matrimonial life -- cannot be said that wife was only protecting her rights. (2003) 4 SCC 161 and 2011 SCC Online MP 2261 distinguished. (2013) 5 SCC 226 followed. (2018) 17 SCC 378, First Appeal No. 1797 of 2019 decided on 20.3.3023 and (2019) 8 SCC 308 referred to. [Paras 24 to 27, 36 to 45, 47 to 49]
(3) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13 -- events subsequent to filing of divorce petition can be taking into consideration. (2021) SCC Online SC 702 and (2012) 7 SCC 288 followed. [Para 46]
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 41 fuŒ 27 & vfrfjä nLrkost vfHkys[k ij ykus ds fy, vkosnu & i{kdkjksa dk lk{; lekIr gqvk rc nLrkost igys ls vfHkys[k ij & vihykFkhZ dks nLrkostksa dh tkudkjh Fkh & dqN nLrkost igys ls vfHkys[k ij ijarq vihykFkhZ us çnf'kZr ugha fd, & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vfrfjä nLrkost vihy ds çØe ij vfHkys[k ij ugha fy, tk ldrs- fo'ks"kr% ;g LFkkfir djus esa vlQy jgus ij fd lE;d~ rRijrk ds ckotwn og nLrkost is'k ugha fd, tk lds & vkosnu [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 14½
¼2½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13¼1½¼1d½ & Øwjrk & vihykFkhZ ifr us çR;fFkZuh iRuh ls dHkh nqO;Zogkj ugha fd;k & iRuh ds Lo;a ds dFkukuqlkj og ns[kHkky djrk Fkk & ifr dk vfHkdFku fd iRuh ml ij efnjkiku] O;fHkpkj dk vkjksi yxkrh Fkh rFkk mlds pfj= ij lansg djrh Fkh & lk{kh }kjk lefFkZr] tks U;kf;d vf/kdkjh & vihykFkhZ Hkh U;kf;d vf/kdkjh] tks Lo;a dh Nfo vkSj [;kfr /kwfey djus dk ç;kl dHkh ugha djrk & vfHkdFkuksa ls çHkkfor vU; O;fä Hkh U;kf;d vf/kdkjhx.k & vihykFkhZ ds 'olqj us pfj= ij lansg ds dkj.k mldk eksckby Qksu Nhuk & iRuh rFkk mlds ekrk&firk] Hkzkrk vkSj cgu vihykFkhZ ds vkf/kdkfjd vkokl ij vk,] vihykFkhZ ij geyk fd;k vkSj mls xkfy;k¡ nha & U;kf;d vf/kdkjhx.k i{kdkjksa dks 'kkar djus esa vlQy jgs vkSj iqfyl vf/kdkjh cqyk, x, & fookn vkSj geyk rc lekIr gqvk tc mUgksaus e/;{ksi fd;k] ftlds i'pkr~ iqfyl fjiksVZ nkf[ky dh xbZ & ekeyk LFkkuh; lekpkji= esa çdkf'kr & iRuh us ,d vU; iqfyl Fkkus esa f'kdk;r dh fd vihykFkhZ] mlds ekrk&firk] Hkzkrk rFkk HkkHkh mlds ?kj vk, vkSj ngst ek¡xk] iRuh dks ihVk vkSj xkfy;k¡ nha & dksbZ vijk/k iath—r ugha & iRuh us iqfyl çkf/kdkjhx.k dks çdj.k iath—r djus dk funsZ'k fn, tkus ds fy, fjV ;kfpdk çLrqr dh & iRuh rFkk mlds firk us Li"V dFku fd;k fd ?kVuk ds fnukad dks vihykFkhZ mifLFkr ugha Fkk ijarq mUgksaus mls fjV ;kfpdk esa i{kdkj cuk;k vkSj ek¡x dh fd vihykFkhZ ds fo:) Hkh çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ iath—r dh tk, & rRi'pkr~ iRuh us vihykFkhZ vkSj mlds dqVqac ds lnL;ksa ds fo:) çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky dh & vihykFkhZ us vfxze tekur vkosnu çLrqr fd;k rks fojks/k vkosnu fn;k & eq[; ijh{kk ds nkSjku dFku fd;k fd mlds firk us vihykFkhZ dks dkj Ø; djus ds fy, :i;s 15 yk[k fn, & çfrijh{kk esa dgk fd mls foLe`r gks x;k gS fd ;g /ku fn;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha & iRuh rFkk mlds firk çdV djus esa vleFkZ fd mUgsa ngst ds fy, /ku dgk¡ ls çkIr gqvk & ;g n'kkZus ds fy, ,d Hkh nLrkost is'k ugha fd iRuh ds firk }kjk dksbZ vkHkw"k.k] dkj vFkok bysDVª‚fud midj.k Ø; fd;k x;k & vihykFkhZ us dkj vkSj bysDVª‚fud midj.kksa ds Ø; ds nLrkost çnf'kZr fd, & ;g LFkkfir fd ngst dh ek¡x dk dksbZ fookn ugha Fkk & bl ckjs esa fofufnZ"Vr% iwNs tkus ij fd tc ngst vkjaHk ls gh ek¡xk tk jgk Fkk rks çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ brus foyac ls D;ksa nkf[ky dh xbZ] iRuh us dgk fd vihykFkhZ us mls mlds ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;k rnqijkar mlus fjiksVZ nkf[ky dh rFkk ifr mls ckgj ugha fudkyrk rks og fjiksVZ nkf[ky ugha djrh & iRuh us vihykFkhZ ds T;s"B çkf/kdkjhx.k ls f'kdk;r dh rkfd mldh lsok lekIr dj nh tk, vkSj mls tsy Hkst fn;k tk, & fujarj çdj.k çLrqr fd,] U;kf;d tk¡p dh bZIlk dh] vihykFkhZ ds vkpj.k ds ckjs esa mPprj çkfèkdkjhx.k dks vusd f'kdk;rsa dh & 'kfeaZnk djus] rax djus] vfHk=kl nsus- vi'kCn dgus vkSj viekfur djus esa dksbZ dlj ugha NksM+h -- okni= esa Øwjrk dh çpqj ?kVukvksa dk vfHkopu & fookg&foPNsn vthZ çLrqr fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ Hkh ?kVuk,¡ ?kVha & iRuh ds —R;ksa@vkpj.k ls Øwjrk xfBr & nkEiR; thou dk lkekU; {kj.k ugha ekuk tk ldrk & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd iRuh vius vf/kdkjksa dk laj{k.k ek= dj jgh FkhA ¼2003½ 4 ,llhlh 161 rFkk 2011 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 2261 çHksfnrA ¼2013½ 5 ,llhlh 226 vuqlfjrA ¼2018½ 17 ,llhlh 378] çFke vihy Øekad 1797 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 20-3-3023 rFkk ¼2019½ 8 ,llhlh 308 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 24 ls 27] 36 ls 45] 47 ls 49½
¼3½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13 & fookg&foPNsn vthZ çLrqr fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ dh ?kVukvksa ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2021½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 702 rFkk ¼2012½ 7 ,llhlh 288 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 46½

JUDGMENT

1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of both the first appeals filed by husband as both the appeals are arising out of same impugned judgment.

2. These First Appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 have been preferred by appellant/husband being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in Hindu Marriage Act Case Nos.261A/2014 and 265A/2014, whereby the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed and the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the appellant/husband was ordered to restitute conjugal relations.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Rituals on 20.02.2011 at Village-Bheda, Police Station-Sleemanabad, District-Katni and at that time, the appellant was in Judicial Service and was posted at Raipur as Vth Civil Judge Class-II. On 27.08.2012, they were blessed with a baby girl named Kumari Aradhya. After marriage, the behaviour of the respondent/wife was harsh towards the appellant and his family members. Wife started treating family members of husband with cruelty. The respondent/wife and her family members used to threaten to falsely implicate the appellant and his family members in criminal case. The respondent/wife doubted the character of her husband as and when husband went out to play badminton, by alleging that appellant was consuming liquor and womanizing. On 16.06.2011, the sister-in-law of the appellant namely Shayan Dubey was at Raipur, she was standing outside the house of appellant and shouted against the appellant and thereafter, the appellant reported the matter to the Police Station-Civil Lines. Head Constable and Mr. R.S Tiwari, a Police Officer came and enquired about the matter. The respondent was falsely alleging that the appellant was having illicit relations with the women judges posted thereby doubting his character. She also used scandalous words and made obscene utterances. When the daughter was born to the respondent/wife, the mother of the appellant came to look after the respondent and, on 30.08.2012 when she was in the hospital, the respondent/wife misbehaved with her mother-in-law. Being disturbed by the conduct of the respondent, the mother-in-law of the respondent returned to her home on 01.09.2012. On 08.11.2012, at the time of Deepawali festival, the appellant/husband went to Bandhavgarh to meet his parents and persuaded the respondent/wife to return to her matrimonial home but she refused to go with him and asked him to leave. The respondent/wife continued to stay at her parental home despite appellant requesting her time and again to return to his place of posting but she outrightly refused. Moreso the wife was avoiding to receive his phone calls. In the month of January, 2013, the appellant sent a bank draft of Rs.5,000/-and a letter to the respondent which was though received by her on 19.01.2023 but she neither intimated nor replied to the same.

4. On 22.03.2013, at 06:30 pm, the appellant returned from his work, at that time, the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, wife and brother-in-law of the appellant came to his official residence and after some conversation, they started abusing him and his father-in-law snatched his mobile phone and was receiving his phone calls for three hours. In the meantime, the respondent and her mother assaulted the appellant with the charger of the mobile phone and iron rods and threatened to implicate him in a false case of dowry. Chandraprakash Thakur, who was the Peon of the appellant and another person Kejuram Gadhewal came in the appellant's residence, they were threatened by the family members of the respondent. The matter was intimated to CJM Raipur, on that C.J.M. Raipur with Police O