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

2013 Supreme(MP) 405

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Menon and A.K. Sharma, JJ.
Onkar Nath v. Sushila
First Appeal No.64 of 1997 (Jabalpur) against the judgment and decree of Fifth Additional District Judge, Rewa, passed in
Civil Suit No.8-A of 1995; Decided on 18.7.2013.

Advocates:
Aditya Adhikari with Abhishek Gulati for appellant;
None for respondent.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S.13 -- suit for dissolution of marriage by husband -- no cogent evidence or material in support of allegation of desertion, adultery and cruelty -- mere casual statement of wife regarding illicit relations of her husband will not fall in the category of mental cruelty in absence of any consistent effort of proving the same -- dismissal of suit for dissolution of marriage justified -- no need of interference.

       Held : She only makes an allegation or statement in her cross-examination that her husband is having wrong relation with his sister-in-law. Apart from the above there is no assertion made by her and, therefore, applying the law on the question in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that a casual statement made by the wife, in her examination-in-chief, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, will not fall in the category of mental cruelty as is required to be established under law. For establishing an act of mental cruelty, making of such a casual statement is not enough, something more in support thereof has to be done and when there is nothing to show that the respondent wife has consistently made such false allegation or had tried to create a reasonable apprehension in the appellant’s mind so as to import a feeling of harm or injury, or an act detrimental to his interest, an act of cruelty cannot be made out. AIR 1994 SC 710(1) followed. AIR 2005 Bombay 180, AIR 1990 Calcutta 367, AIR 1996 M.P. 205 and AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 171 relied on.

       fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 13 && ifr }kjk fookg ds fo?kVu ds fy, okn && vfHkR;tu] tkjdeZ rFkk dzwjrk ds vfHkdFku ds leFkZu esa dksbZ n`<+ lk{; ;k lkexzh ugha && iRuh dk vius ifr ds voS/k laca/kksa ds ckjs esa lkef;d dFku ek= mls lkfcr djus ds fdlh lrr~ iz;kl ds vHkko esa ekufld dzwjrk dh dksfV esa ugha && fookg ds fo?kVu ds fy, okn dh [kkfjth U;k;laxr && gLr{ksi dh dksbZ vko’;drk ughaA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % og viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g vfHkdFku ;k dFkuek= djrh gS fd mlds ifr dk viuh HkkHkh ls xyr laca/k gSA mi;qZDr ds vfrfjDr mlds }kjk dksbZ dFku ugha gS rFkk] blfy,] ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj iz’u ij fof/k ykxw djus ij] gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd izLrqr ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa iRuh }kjk fd;k x;k vkdfLed dFku ml ekufld dzwjrk dh dksfV esa ugha vk,xk tks fof/k ds v/khu LFkkfir dh tkuk visf{kr gSA ekufld dzwjrk dk d`R; LFkkfir djus ds fy, ,slk vkdfLed dFku djuk i;kZIr ugha gS] blds leFkZu esa dqN vkSj Hkh fd;k tkuk gksrk gS rFkk tc ;g nf’kZr djus ds fy, dqN ugha gS fd izR;FkhZ&iRuh us ,sls feF;k vfHkdFku fujarj yxk, ;k gkfu ;k {kfr dh Hkkouk ds vfHkizk; ls vihykFkhZ ds efLr”d esa ;qfDr;qDr vk’kadk mRiUu djus ;k mlds fgr ds fy, gkfudj d`R; djus dk iz;kl fd;k] dzwjrk dk d`R; ugha cu ldrkA , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 710¼1½ vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 2005 cacbZ 180] , vkb vkj 1990 dydRrk 367] , vkb vkj 1996 e-iz- 205 rFkk , vkb vkj 2004 iatkc rFkk gfj;k.kk 171 voyafcrA

JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is made to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1996, passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No.8-A/1995. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, a suit filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of the marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dismissed.

2. Parties herein were married in the year 1980 and it is the case of the appellant that ever since the marriage, the respondent wife started behaving in a very peculiar manner, she was harassing the appellant and his family members and her acts amounted to act of cruelty. It is stated that initially she sought for partition of the appellant’s family property, thereafter made him stay separately from his family members. This was agreed to, but still she was not satisfied, she started harassing the family of the appellant and then deserted him. It is also stated that the respondent wife had some illicit relations with one of her brother-in-law and accordingly on the ground of desertion and illicit relations with the brother-in-law, the suit for divorce was filed. Respondent wife contested the same and denied the allegations of cruelty and adultery as alleged in the plaint. It was her case that out of the wedlock two children were born. The allegations of cruelty and adultery are wrong. The two sons were 11 years and 9 years of age respectively and it is stated by the respondent wife that false allegations have been alleged only to somehow get the marriage dissolved so that the appellant husband can remarry. Based on the rival contentions, five issues were framed. The first issue was as to whether the respondent wife has acted in a cruel manner. It was held that this issue has not been proved. The second issue was as to whether the cruelty of the respondent resulted in mental harassment to the appellant husband. This issue was also decided against the appellant. The third issue framed was as to whether the appellant without any justification or reason is refusing to look after his wife and children. This issue was answered in positive by holding that once the appellant is refusing to take care of his wife and children. The fourth issue framed was as to whether the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce. It was held that the grounds alleged in the plaint are not proved and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to decree of divorce.

3. Shri Aditya Adhikari and Shri Abhishek Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, took us through the statement of the appellant and his two witnesses – namely PW2 Naresh Singh and PW3 Virendra Singh, and tried to emphasize that the allegations of adultery and desertion have been proved and inspite of their being cogent evidence in support of the contention, it was argued that in a perverse manner the learned court below has held the allegation to be not proved. That apart, it was argued by learned counsel at the time of hearing that in the proceedings that were held before the trial Court, respondent wife had made serious allegations of adultery against the appellant by saying that the appellant is having illicit relations with his sister-in-law, this was a serious allegation and the trial court has found the same to be not proved. Accordingly, it was argued that when in a proceeding held under the Hindu Marriage Act, if one of the party makes serious allegations like allegation of adultery and the same is not proved, this amounts to cruelty and, therefore, on this ground the marriage can be dissolved. Accordingly, the submission made was that in the light of the wild allegations of adultery made by the respondent wife during the proceedings held in the trial Court, a case for dissolution on the ground of cruelty is made out. In support of the aforesaid contention to say that cruelty is made out if such an allegation is levelled in a proceeding held, the following judgments have been relied upon : Mrs
























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