Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 8454
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Shree Chandrashekhar, Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ
Prahalad Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Sweta Kumari – Respondent
Civil Appeal | First Appeal No.181 of 2019 | Original Suit No.243 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: In-person
For the Respondents:Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Conduct constituting cruelty in marriage can significantly impact the mental health of a spouse, justifying a divorce under the Special Marriage Act.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 27(1)(d) - Divorce Suit - Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition on grounds of cruelty - First Appeal allowed. (Paras 1-26)
(B) Cruelty - Conduct of spouse constitutes cruelty when it adversely affects the mental health of the other spouse - Legal recourse does not amount to cruelty - The emotional and mental impacts of a spouse's behavior must be considered comprehensively. (Paras 18-24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his divorce suit where he alleged that the respondent inflicted cruelty through false criminal cases and abusive behavior, impacting his mental well-being. The marriage was solemnized on 23rd June 2012. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found the appellant’s allegations credible, highlighting the brief duration of cohabitation and the undue pressure exerted on the appellant due to false and frivolous cases filed against him. The Family Court's dismissive stance on the appellant's mental suffering was erroneous. (Paras 24-25)
Issues: Whether the respondent's behavior constituted cruelty; the validity of the divorce on the basis of alleged cruelty; and whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the divorce petition. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the appellant had suffered mental cruelty due to the respondent's actions, fulfilling the grounds stipulated under the Special Marriage Act. The judgments concerning the criminal complaints reinforced the appellant's claim of harassment. (Paras 20-24)
Result: The judgment and decree in Original Suit No. 243 of 2013 are set aside. Marriage dissolved with an order for permanent alimony of Rs.50 Lakhs to be paid to the respondent. (Paras 26-29)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and initiation of divorce suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant’s allegations and background of marriage. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent’s counterarguments regarding claims. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. framing of issues for trial. (Para 6 , 11) |
| 5. appellant's grounds of appeal. (Para 12) |
| 6. legal definitions and interpretation of cruelty. (Para 13 , 20) |
| 7. judgment evaluation on cruelty allegations. (Para 21 , 24) |
| 8. final judgment on divorce and alimony. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
J U D G M E N T
C.A.V. on 23 rd March 2023 Pronounced on 13 th April 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The judgment in Original Suit No.243 of 2013 (in short, “Divorce Suit”) has been challenged by the husband of Sweta Kumari by filing the present First Appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act , 1984.
2. The Additional Family Court Judge at Ranchi has dismissed the aforementioned Divorce Suit instituted by Prahalad Prasad, the appellant, under section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act , 1954 for a decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage solemnized with Sweta Kumari on 23rd June 2012 before the Marriage Registrar at Ranchi.
3. The appellant has pleaded that on 12th February 2012 his parents visited the house of the respondent and finalized his marriage with the girl who was shown to them by the parents of the respondent. But on 17th February 2012 a different girl was presented with whom the engagement ceremony was performed. According to him, he did not raise any objection at that time as many friends and relatives were invited on that occasion. Later on, when he started making enquiries the respondent and her parents threatened to implicate him and his family members in false criminal cases if he refused to marry the respondent. The appellant has further pleaded that to put pressure on him and his parents a false criminal case was lodged vide Doranda (Argora) PS Case No. 133 of 2012 on 25th March 2012 under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . Subsequently, a false allegation of attempt to rape under section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the said case to put further pressure on him to agree for the marriage with the respondent. However, the charge under section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against him was quashed by the Jharkhand High Court by an order dated 9th May 2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2014. This order was challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed on 25th July 2014. The criminal proceeding against his brother in the said case was also quashed by the Jharkhand High Court by an order dated 28th January 2015 passed in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2014. In the meantime, the respondent gave another complaint to the police making allegation against him and his family members of demanding Rs.2.5 Lakhs as legal expenses and Rs.10 Lakhs as dowry on the basis of which Jagarnathpur (Pundag) PS Case No.293 of 2014 was registered under sections 498-A, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . In that case, after the investigation the police submitted Final Form but the respondent did not stop there and filed a protest petition which is still pending in the Court.
4. This is also pleaded by the appellant that after the marriage the respondent started quarreling with and abusing his parents and put pressure on him to live separately from them. On 29th July 2012 when he came back from Barh, the respondent started shouting at and abusing him in filthy language and again pressurized him to get separated from the parents. The appellant has further pleaded that the respondent threatened to implicate him in a case by attempting to commit suicide if he did not heed to her demands and agree to stay in the house of her parents at Ranchi. He therefore requested the parents of the respondent to reason with her. But, on the contrary, the mother
