Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Saumitra Dayal Singh and
Donadi Ramesh, JJ.
Kavita – Appellant
versus
Rohit Kumar – Respondent
First Appeal No.543 of 2015
Decided on 21.9.2024
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13—Family Courts Act, 1984—Section 19—Dissolution of marriage—No provision for permanent alimony—While administering family law, Courts are not required to imagine an ideal family or ideal family relations to judge whether act complained is one that may amount to cruelty—Alleged cruelty by appellant-wife—Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not available as a statutory ground to dissolve a Hindu marriage—Fact that appellant suffered a firearm injury at hands of an unknown assailants remained wholly extraneous to ground of cruelty alleged—As to further allegation that appellant tried to trouble her father-in-law, no date, time and place of such occurrence is disclosed in plaint—Same can never be acted upon—Burden to prove the fact remained on respondent—Unless proven facts are such as may lead Courts to inference that aggrieved parties are entitled to construe act of cruelty committed on them, Courts may not impose their own morality or opinion as to conduct that may have been offered by parties in situation in which they existed—As to all other acts of cruelty alleged, those were never pleaded as a fact in plaint—Standard in law remains that any person whether in a matrimonial relationship or otherwise who may be exposed to a criminal occurrence/offence may remain fully entitled to seek justice for such offence committed—Since criminal prosecution lodged by appellant are largely pending against respondent, Court is not in a position to reach any conclusion that those were false—No ground of cruelty exists to dissolve marriage between parties—Judgement and order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court aside.(Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 21 and 22)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Pawan Singh Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 arising from the judgement and order dated 4.9.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Baghpat in Case No. 37 of 2013 (Rohit Kumar vs Smt. Kavita) whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved without making provision for permanent alimony.
3. The Hindu marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.12.2011. There are no children born to the parties. Accordingly, respondent filed divorce suit on 1.2.2013 i.e. within two years of the marriage. In that, he disclosed that the appellant was quarrelsome from beginning and that she offered rude behaviour towards the family (including the parents) of the respondent. Then, of his own, respondent narrated an incident of the date 16.4.2012 wherein the appellant was shot at and was grievously wounded while she was on a way to her parental home in the company of the cousin brother of the respondent.
4. According to the respondent, she was admitted to a hospital by the respondent and treatment was provided to her. Upon being discharged from the hospital, the appellant returned to her matrimonial home but she did not change her ways. She remained quarrelsome and rude. She also did not restrain herself from using an abusive tongue towards the family members of the respondent. While those general/generic allegations were made as to cruelty committed by the respondent, only one specific allegation of cruelty was made. It was alleged, on 3.1.2013, while the respondent was away on duty, the appellant was alone at her parental home in the company of her aged mother-in-law. At that time, certain close relatives of the appellant including her father, brother and two other persons visited the parental home of the respondent and engaged in squabble with the mother of the respondent. Not only she was assaulted but she was attacked with sharp edged weapon causing grievous injuries to her person. It is also a fact that a criminal case was registered with respect to that occurrence and the appellant and her family members were tried. At the same time, it is not disputed to the respondent that the criminal trial being Case No. 391 of 2016 (Karan Singh vs Pappan & Ors.), under Section 323 I.P.C. resulted in acquittal of all accused persons, vide judgement dated 13.3.2020 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C./A.C.J.M. Baghpat. Though a certified copy of that judgement is not on record, at the same time, on query made, learned counsel for the respondent fairly admits that the said judgement does exist and that it was not challenged in revision/appeal itself.
5. While the above criminal case was pending, the divorce suit was instituted on 01.02.2013 with the allegations as described above. Those were disputed by the appellant. Parties led oral evidence in support of their pleas.
6. Learned court below has accepted the plea of cruelty on the strength of evidence led. In that, it has observed that the appellant had offered very cruel behavior and assaulted her mother-in-law along with some other close relatives (of the appellant) on a day when other members of the family of the respondent were not at home to attend the thirteenth day rites of another close relative. Further, the learned court below has taken note of the other criminal case lodged by the appellant against the respondent being Case Crime No. 51 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 307 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and other criminal cases. However, it is a fact that those criminal cases were lodged after institution of the divorce suit proceedings on 1.2.2023. In any case, the plaint in the divorce suit proceedings did not make mention of such facts. It was not amended, either during pendency of the divorce case or during pendency of this appeal. While the respondent never pleaded cruelty arising from the ins
Dissolution of marriage – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not available as a statutory ground to dissolve a Hindu marriage.
The court held that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated by evidence, and unpleaded facts cannot be introduced during the evidence stage in divorce proceedings.
To constitute cruelty in a divorce case, the conduct complained of should be grave and weighty, causing danger to life, limb, or health, or giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. Me....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific instances of cruelty must be proven, and reckless, false, and defamatory allegations constitute mental cruelty.
Unfounded baseless allegations by spouse amounts to cruelty and may provide ground for dissolution of marriage.
The court established that wrongful criminal allegations can constitute mental cruelty justifying a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
