Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 13049
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
FIRST APPEAL No. 1664 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
AVINASH KUMAR TRIPATHI S/O SHRI
RAJESH TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, OCCUPATION: VTH CIVIL
JUDGE CLASS II AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS RAIPUR E-2,
BEHIND GAURAV VATIKA SHANTI
NAGAR RAIPUR DISTRICT
RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. GAUTAM TRIPATHI,
MR. S. BHAMORE AND MR. GAURAV SINGHAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. PRIYANKA TRIPATHI W/O SHRI
AVINASH KUMAR TRIPATHI D/O
BALMUKUND DUBEY OCCUPATION: EX
SARPANCH GRAM BHEDA POST
SLEEMNABAD
TEWARI
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL AND MR. YOSHOWARDHAN JAIN - ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 1665 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
AVINASH KUMAR TRIPATHI S/O SHRI
RAJESH TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, OCCUPATION: VTH CIVIL
JUDGE CLASS II AND JUDICIAL
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 12/14/2023
12:26:33 PM
Signature Not Verified
2
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS RAIPUR E-2,
BEHIND GAURAV VATIKA SHANTI
NAGAR RAIPUR DISTRICT RAIPUR
(CHHATTISGARH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. GAUTAM
TRIPATHI, MR. S. BHAMORE AND MR. GAURAV SINGHAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. PRIYANKA TRIPATHI W/O SHRI
AVINASH KUMAR TRIPATHI S/O
BALMUKUND DUBEY OCCUPATION: EX
SARPANCH GRMA BHEDA POST
SLEEMNABAD
TEWARI
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL AND MR. YOSHOWARDHAN JAIN - ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 20 /11/2023
Pronounced on : 13 /12/2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These appeals having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, Justice Devnarayan Mishra pronounced the following ::-
Subsequent events can be taken into consideration while deciding a divorce petition.
Headnote:
DIVORCE - CRUELTY - [KEYWORD] - Subsequent events can be taken into consideration while deciding the divorce petition. The acts/conducts of respondent constitute cruelty and they cannot be treated as a normal wear and tear of matrimonial life.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-husband filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty by his wife-respondent. The respondent denied the allegations and filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court dismissed the husband's petition and allowed the wife's petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the husband's appeal and dissolved the marriage. The Court held that the respondent's acts of doubting the husband's character, blaming him of being a drunkard womanizer, assaulting him, lodging criminal cases for demand of dowry, filing writ petitions, and making complaints to his higher authorities for disciplinary action constituted cruelty.
Issues: Whether the respondent's acts constituted cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the respondent's acts constituted cruelty because they were intended to cause mental and emotional harm to the husband. The Court also held that subsequent events can be taken into consideration while deciding a divorce petition.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the husband's appeal and dissolved the marriage.
This common judgment shall govern the disposal of both the first appeals filed
by husband as both the appeals are arising out of same impugned judgment.
2. These First Appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
have been preferred by appellant/husband being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in Hindu
Marriage Act Case Nos.261A/2014 and 265A/2014, whereby the application filed by
the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was
dismissed and the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 9 of the
3
Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the appellant/husband was ordered to restitute
conjugal relations.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant and respondent are legally
wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and
Rituals on 20.02.2011 at Village-Bheda, Police Station-Sleemanabad, District-Katni
and at that time, the appellant was in Judicial Service and was posted at Raipur as Vth
Civil Judge Class-II. On 27.08.2012, they were blessed with a baby girl named
Kumari Aradhya. After marriage, the behaviour of the respondent/wife was harsh
towards the appellant and his family members. Wife started treating family members
of husband with cruelty. The respondent/wife and her family members used to
threaten to falsely implicate the appellant and his family members in criminal case.
The respondent/wife doubted the character of her husband as and when husband went
out to play badminton, by alleging that appellant was consuming liquor and
womanizing. On 16.06.2011, the sister-in-law of the appellant namely Shayan Dubey
was at Raipur, she was standing outside the house of appellant and shouted against
the appellant and thereafter, the appellant reported the matter to the Police Station-
Civil Lines. Head Constable and Mr. R.S Tiwari, a Police Officer came and enquired
about the matter. The respondent was falsely alleging that the appellant was having
illicit relations with the women judges posted thereby doubting his character. She also
used scandalous words and made obscene utterances. When the daughter was born to
the respondent/wife, the mother of the appellant came to look after the respondent
4
and, on 30.08.2012 when she was in the hospital, the respondent/wife misbehaved
with her mother-in-law. Being disturbed by the conduct of the respondent, the
mother-in-law of the respondent returned to her home on 01.09.2012. On 08.11.2012,
at the time of Deepawali festival, the appellant/husband went to Bandhavgarh to meet
his parents and persuaded the respondent/wife to return to her matrimonial home but
she refused to go with him and asked him to leave. The respondent/wife continued to
stay at her parental home despite appellant requesting her time and again to return to
his place of posting but she outrightly refused. Moreso the wife was avoiding to
receive his phone calls. In the month of January, 2013, the appellant sent a bank draft
of Rs.5,000/-and a letter to the respondent which was though received by her on
19.01.2023 but she neither intimated nor replied to the same.
4. On 22.03.2013, at 06:30 pm, the appellant returned from his work, at that
time, the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, wife and brother-in-law of the
appellant came to his official residence and after some conversation, they started
abusing him and his father-in-law snatched his mobile phone and was receiving his
phone calls for three hours. In the meantime, the respondent and her mother assaulted
the appellant with the charger of the mobile phone and iron rods and threatened to
implicate him in a false case of dowry. Chandraprakash Thakur, who was the Peon of
the appellant and another person Kejuram Gadhewal came in the appellant's
residence, they were threatened by the family members of the respondent. The matter
was intimated to CJM Raipur, on that C.J.M. Raipur with Police Officers came in the
residence
