Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sunil Ambwani and Bharat Bhushan, JJ.
Prem Kumar Misra and others —Appellants
versus
Smt. Madhu Misra @ Gudia —Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 247 of 2007 and 707 of 2008
Decided on 04.03.2013
IMPORTANT POINT
No uniform standard can be laid down in dealing with cases of mental cruelty.
Headnote:(i) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13 (1) (i-a)—Divorce—Cruelty by wife—Dismissal of divorce petition—No uniform standard can be laid down in dealing with cases of mental cruelty—Plaintiff-husband is unemployed—He appears to have some defect in hearing for which he blames his wife but has not given any date or details of incident in which any injury may have been caused to him on account of any fight or scuffle with her—Having failed to pass medical test he is putting blame on his wife—Evidence on record clearly establishes that having failed to secure employment appellant-husband dependent on his family started demanding dowry—Family was not happy with amount of dowry received—Unemployment of young men, who marry before they are settled, very often creates tension in house—Where husband is dependent on parents and is unable to satisfy basic needs of wife, she starts complaining and many a times situation creates matrimonial disharmony which leads to filing of divorce suit—These circumstances cannot be treated to be grounds to constitute cruelty which is sufficient for granting divorce—Family Judge has not committed any error in recording findings that facts and circumstances as brought out in evidence, were not sufficient to constitute cruelty as a ground for divorce—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6 and 7)
(ii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 24—Maintenance—In appeal against maintenance under Section 24 Family Judge committed gross error in refusing to grant interim maintenance on ground that wife had filed written statement after several adjournments—Photographs showing notice board of a coaching centre by itself could not be a ground, unless evidence was led to hold that respondent-wife was earning to maintain herself and her daughter—Husband did not lead sufficient evidence to establish that wife is earning to maintain herself and her daughter—As a husband, even if he is unemployed, it is his duty to maintain his wife and his daughter—Husband directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to defendant-wife and Rs. 3000/- as maintenance to his daughter. (Paras 24 and 26)
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
Sunil Ambwani, J.— By the Court.—We have heard Shri H.N. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband, and Shri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-wife.
2. The First Appeal No. 247 of 2007 arises out of a judgment and order dated 3.8.2007 passed by the Additional Principal Family Judge, Allahabad in Matrimonial Case No. 187 of 2003, by which he has dismissed the Suit filed by Shri Prem Kumar Misra-the husband for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) on the ground of cruelty by the respondent-wife.
3. The plaintiff-husband filed the suit for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act on the ground of cruelty on the allegations that the marriage between Shri Prem Kumar Misra-the plaintiff-appellant and Smt. Madhu Mishra-the defendant-respondent was solernnised on 11.5.1995 at 409 Nai Basti Kydganj, Allahabad in accordance with the Hindu customs. He brought the respondent-wife after ceremonies of ‘Gauna’ on 14.2.2000 to his house No. 644/508 Netanagar, Kydganj, Allahabad. The respondent-wife started troubling the plaintiff and his relatives. She did not carry out the matrimonial duties as wife with full devotion. She used to fight with the plaintiff and the members of his family and used to abuse them. Whenever the plaintiff would approach her for maintaining relations with her as her husband, she used to rebuke and abuse him. After great difficulty and persuasion by his parents she finally agreed to consummate the marriage in October, 2010. A girl child Mitali was born on 11.8.2001. After the birth of the child the respondent-wife became more irritable and used to get angry on small pretext. She would throw utensils on the plaintiff and abuse him. The plaintiff, in order to maintain peace and fearing public criticism, did not complain.
4. The plaintiff-husband further stated in the plaint that six months after the birth of their daughter, the respondent-wife stopped working. She used to keep lying on the bed. The plaintiff took her for consultation of Gynecologist Dr. Neeta Verma, who did not find any illness or any physical ailment with her, on which the respondent-wife started abusing the doctor in her chamber. When the plaintiff tried to pacify her, she threw the child on the floor. He somehow managed to bring them home. On 16.3.2003 the respondent-wife insisted on visiting her parents. On his request to wait for few days until Holi when he would accompany her, she went to the kitchen and opened the valve of gas stove connected with cylinder on which the kitchen was filled with the gas. The defendant-wife tried to put the kitchen on fire on which the plaintiff and his family somehow brought her out of the kitchen. She continued to threaten the family to commit suicide and to implicate the entire family in a criminal case for demanding dowry. The plaintiff got terrorised and called her father. She left accompanied with her father and since thereafter she is living with her parents. The plaintiffs family has mentally broken down on the attitude, and temperament of the defendant and that it is no longer possible for the plaintiff to live with her.
5. In the written statement the defendant-wife admitted the marriage and ‘Gauna’ ceremony on 14.2.2000 after which she went to plaintiffs residential house in village Kotwa, where she lived with him and served the family as dutiful bride. The plaintiff was not employed on which the defendant’s father gave him Rs. 4 lacs, several goods and jewelery in dowry. The plaintiff and his family members were not happy with the dowry and started demanding a car in dowry. She was troubled and subjected to cruelty for the demand. The plaintiffs uncle is serving as Constable in Regional Transport Office at Allahabad. His unemployed son was given a Maruti car in dowry, on which the family used to make complaints to her. The family would rebuke her for bringing insufficient dowry and taunted her by statin
