Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pradeep Nandrajog and Ms. Pratibha Rani, JJ.
Jayanti —Appellant
versus
Rakesh Mediratta —Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 129 of 2016
Decided on 27.10.2016
For the Appellant:Mr. Manjit Singh Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sunil Mittal, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Dhruv Grover and Mr. R.K. Bedi, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
In matrimonial proceedings, the pleadings assume grave significance. In view of Section 20 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Court is empowered to act upon unfounded allegations in the pleadings treating the same as evidence.
Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act 1955—Section 13(1)(ia)—Decree of divorce granted in favour of husband by Family Court on being satisfied that husband was subjected to mental cruelty by being deprived of conjugal relationship by wife—Appeal by wife—Wife had filed counter claim for Judicial separation—Allegations made in written statement and counter claim per-se constituted cruelty which entitled husband straight way to a decree for divorce—In terms of section 20 of the Act Court was empowered to act upon unfounded allegations in pleadings treating same as evidence—Though appellant wife while tendering her examination-in-chief by why of affidavit evidence omitted to refer those accusations imputed against her husband, same did not dilute act of cruelty committed by her—Allegations of sexual perversity against husband amounted to mental cruelty justifying a decree of divorce—No interference was warranted
Held: In matrimonial proceedings, the pleadings assume grave significance. In view of Section 20 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Court is empowered to act upon unfounded allegations in the pleadings treating the same as evidence.
It is an admitted situation that the wife while tendering her examination-in-chief by way of evidence omitted to refer any of the above accusations imputed against her husband. This omission, however, does not dilute the act of cruelty committed by her for the reason that such accusations do form part of the record.
In the case reported as AIR 2003 SC 2462 Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate the Supreme Court held that subsequent withdrawal of allegations by amending written statement by the spouse is of no consequence.
In view of Section 20(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the allegations made in written statement and counter claim can be safely accepted and admitted as evidence of cruelty committed by the wife. The pious relationship between a father and a daughter has been maligned by the wife to such an extent that the wife is guilty of treating the husband with worst form of mental cruelty. The nature of allegations made against the husband which remained unsubstantiated, must have left an indelible mark on the mind of the husband. No spouse can swallow such filthy allegations and also continue with the marital tie.
It sounds paradoxical that wife was not letting the husband to have physical contact but the husband was blamed for keeping condoms accessible to their eight years old daughter and also for waking up the daughter in the midnight to witness their sexual activity. The allegations of sexual perversity against the husband amounted to mental cruelty justifying a decree of divorce. It may also be recorded here that the wife despite filing a counter claim seeking judicial separation neither got any issue framed on that nor led any evidence. Rather by stating that ‘For the physical mental, emotional and overall growth of my child, I want all of us to live together.’ in her cross examination she had taken a stand which is in conflict with her plea in the counter claim that ‘she does not want that the petitioner should interfere in her as well as her daughter’s life and thus, she has sought the relief of judicial separation and do not want divorce as she does not want to remarry and wants to live her life for the sake of her daughter and she also wants that she should not become the cause for embarrassment for her growing daughter at later stage of life by becoming a divorcee and causing a lifetime complex in the mind of her daughter’. We are unable to perceive how these two situations can be reconciled.
After contesting the suit tooth and nail and even filing the counter claim seeking judicial separation for the sake of child, if during her cross examination she offered to live with the husband alongwith child for the welfare of the child, it must be held to be a pretended concession after committing the cruelty for frustrating the claim of the husband. The wife herein has damaged the very basis of fabric of this marital bond beyond repair. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated July 21, 2016. The appeal is dismissed. (Paras 6, 11 to 13, 15, 17 and 18)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Pratibha Rani, J.—The appellant-wife is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated July 21, 2016 passed by learned Judge, Family Court in HMA Petition No.289/2014 (Old No.647/2012) whereby the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce.
2. The appellant-wife in this case is well qualified. She is M.Com, B.Ed. employed as Post Graduate Teacher in a reputed public school in Delhi. The respondent-husband is also well placed in a private company earning a decent salary. We shall hereinafter refer the parties as the ‘wife’ and the ‘husband’.
3. It is admitted case of the parties that they got married on February 22, 2004 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple was blessed with a female child on December 08, 2004. Matrimonial discord started in the year 2005. Since at the matrimonial home the parents-in-law of the wife were also residing, the parties started living separately in a rented accommodation in close proximity to the matrimonial home. The wife left the rented accommodation in December, 2006. Litigations between the parties started in the year 2007 which was put to an end by them by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding on May 04, 2010. While condoning the acts attributed to each other, they decided to live together at Shakarpur in a premises owned by father of the wife. The parties lived together till October 01, 2012. Thereafter pursuant to the incident dated October 01, 2012, when police was also called by the wife, the husband left Shakarpur and returned to his parents’ home in Shalimar Bagh. He also brought alongwith him the air conditioner, washing machine and other belongings which were purchased by him when the parties decided to live in Shakarpur in a separate accommodation in terms of settlement. Since the efforts by the parties to give another trial to their marriage failed, HMA Petition No.647/2012 was filed by the husband in December, 2012 seeking dissolution of marriage.
4. The wife filed the written statement as well the counter claim seeking judicial separation. The learned Judge, Family Court proceeded to dispose of the HMA petition with reference to the acts of cruelty post MOU dated May 04, 2010. Therefore, we need not delve on various acts of cruelty alleged prior to MOU dated May 04, 2010.
5. The learned Judge Family Court had granted a decree of divorce on being satisfied that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the following reasons:-
(i) The husband had been able to prove that he had been deprived of conjugal relationship by the wife. This was admitted by the wife during her cross examination.
(ii) Though the parties were living under one roof during the period May 04, 2010 to October 02, 2012, they were not living as husband and wife. The wife denied physical contact to her husband on the pretext of requiring more time to develop understanding between the two.
6. In matrimonial proceedings, the pleadings assume grave significance. In view of Section 20 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Court is empowered to act upon unfounded allegations in the pleadings treating the same as evidence.
7. We would like to extract Section 20 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which reads as under:-
‘20. Contents and verification of petitions.–
(1) Every petition presented under this Act shall stated as distinctly as the nature of the case permits the facts on which the claim to relief is founded [and, except in a petition under Section 11, shall also state] that there is no collusion between the petitioner and the other party to the marriage.
(2) The statements contained in every petition under this Act shall be verified by the petitioner or some other competent person in the manner required by law for the verification of plaints, and may, at the hearing, be referred to as evidence.’
8. Since the allegations repeatedly made in the written statement and the counter claim per se constitute
