Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
J.R.Midha, J.
Swati —Appellant
versus
Arvind Mudgal —Respondent
Mat.App.No.5 of 2013
Decided on 29.1.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Meenakshi Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Sunil Mittal, Amicus curiae
For the Respondent:Ms. Dimple Vivek, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
False accusations leveled by respondent in written statement constitute cruelty, which sufficient to grant decree of divorce.
Headnote:(i) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 read with 34 — Divorce — On ground of cruelty — HELD — Offence of murder committed by respondent — Resulting in life imprisonment — Caused immense pain, agony and apprehension in mind of petitioner that not safe to stay with respondent — Which sufficient to dissolve marriage on ground of cruelty. [Para — 31]
(ii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — On ground of cruelty — HELD — False accusations leveled by respondent in written statement — Constitute cruelty — Which sufficient to grant decree of divorce to petitioner. [Para 31]
Result: Appeal allowed
J.R. Midha, J.—The appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge whereby her petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their ranks before the learned Trial Court as ‘petitioner’ and ‘respondent’, respectively.
PETITIONER’S CASE
2. The respondent married the petitioner on 14th June, 2009 by using force, undue influence and coercion. The respondent used to go wild after drinking liquor and he used to utter filthy abuses to the petitioner. The respondent never allowed the petitioner to visit her parents even for a day. The respondent used to quench his thirst of inner instinct by humiliating the petitioner in public by abusing, slapping or dragging her by her hairs. The respondent used to beat the petitioner with whatever came to his hand that might be racket, shoes, slipper, belt, lamp-shed. The verbal abusiveness, violent tendencies and the paranoid behavior practiced by the respondent upon the petitioner within short span of about two weeks of marriage badly shattered inner soul of the petitioner.
3. On 29th June, 2009 i.e. after 15 days of the marriage, the petitioner was arrested by the police for the murder of a boy, named Gopal under Sections 302/34 IPC.
4. After about two weeks of the arrest of the respondent i.e. in second week of July, 2009, the mother of the respondent started humiliating the petitioner by taunting her that her son went to jail because of marrying her and she demanded Rs.2 lakh from the petitioner for pursuing the Court case.
5. On 26th August, 2009 at 9.30 AM, the petitioner went to Butler Public School to attend the parents-teacher meeting of the respondent’s minor sister, Anjali on the instructions of her mother-in-law. The petitioner returned at around 11.30 a.m. when she found her mother-in-law in objectionable clothes with a middle age man who left on seeing the petitioner whereupon her mother-in-law tortured and slapped the petitioner.
6. On 9th October, 2009, the petitioner’s mother-in-law took her to Tis Hazari Court. The petitioner’s step-father also came there. The respondent as well as his mother abused and humiliated the petitioner’s step-father. The petitioner’s mother-in-law on several occasions took her to Tis Hazari Court where she disgracefully insulted her. The petitioner’s mother-in-law also abused the petitioner’s mother several times on telephone.
7. On 5th November, 2009, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and came back to her parents for her safety. At that time, the respondent’s mother had gone to Agra to visit her other son, Kuldeep who was lodged in Agra Jail. The petitioner received many telephonically threats directly from her mother-in-law and unknown persons threatening on behalf of the respondent.
8. On 5th April, 2011, the petitioner instituted a petition for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
9. On 2nd May, 2011, the respondent was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
10. The respondent challenged his conviction before this Court in Criminal Appeal 923/2011 which was dismissed on 19th March, 2014.
RESPONDENT’S CASE
11. The petitioner is a greedy and cruelsome lady and has filed the divorce petition only to extort money from the respondent. The petitioner demanded Rs. 5 lakh from the respondent and his mother to purchase a new house for her family with a threat to make their life hell. The petitioner used to tell the respondent that she married him to buy a new house for her parents with the respondent’s money and if the respondent failed to fulfill her demands, she will implicate the respondent and his family in false cases.
12. The respondent’s mother succumbed to the threats of the petitioner and gave Rs.5 lakh to the petitioner to save the matrimonial home of her son. The petitioner purchased a
