Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 52131
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Devnarayan Mishra, JJ
Preeti Bam – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Bam – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. 776 of 2020 | FIRST APPEAL No. 861 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kailash Chandra Dilliwal, Rakesh Kumar Laad
For the Respondents: Rakesh Kumar Laad, Kailash Chandra Dilliwal
The court established that making baseless, unproven allegations of black magic and physical cruelty by a spouse constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and warrants the dissolution of a marriage that has irretrievably broken down.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Marriage dissolved - Parties living separately since February 2014 - Allegations of black magic and false criminal complaints by wife treated as acts of cruelty - Held, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is evident.
Facts of the case:
The parties were married on 20.11.2013 and resided together for a short period. The husband alleged constant harassment, financial misappropriation, and refusal to perform household duties. The wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, making allegations of black magic and physical torture. The trial court dismissed the divorce petition but granted judicial separation.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the wife failed to prove her allegations of cruelty, while the husband's claims regarding the wife's conduct were largely unchallenged during cross-examination. Given the long separation and lack of potential for reconciliation, the court allowed the husband's appeal and dissolved the marriage.
Issues: Whether the persistent conduct of the wife and baseless allegations constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, justifying a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: Baseless and unproven allegations of serious nature, such as black magic and physical torture, constitute mental cruelty. Where the marriage is irretrievably broken with no chance of reconciliation, maintaining a marriage on paper serves no fruitful purpose.
Result: Wife's appeal dismissed; Husband's appeal allowed; Marriage dissolved.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of appeals arising from the same matrimonial judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of facts and the parties' contentions regarding matrimonial conduct. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's rejection of additional evidence due to lack of justification. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. analysis of evidence concerning cruelty and the factum of separation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. the court finds that unproven allegations of black magic constitute cruelty, justifying marriage dissolution. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Justice Devnarayan Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
This common judgment shall govern the disposal of both the first appeals as both the appeals are arising out of same impugned judgment.
2. These appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act being aggrieved by the judgments and decree passed by Principal Judge Family Court Indore in HMA No.106/2018 dated 21.10.2020 by which the petition of husband Suresh Chandra Bam under Section 13(1)(ia) have been dismissed but the decree of judicial separation has been granted against the wife Smt. Preeti Suresh Bam. The appeal No.776/2020 has challenged the decree and judicial separation assailing with the decree cannot be passed.
3. In this case the respondent/husband Suresh Bam shall be mentioned as petitioner and appellant/wife Preeti Bam shall be mentioned as respondent for the convenience.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the parties are governed by Hindu law and marriage of the petitioner and the appellant was solemnized on 20.11.2013 at Nathdwara Rajasthan as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The petitioner was residing in joint family at Mumbai after marriage both the parties started residing at Mumbai and just after 15 days of marriage respondent/wife started quarreling and fighting without any reason over petty issues with the petitioner and his family members using filthy language. The respondent make false allegations that the petitioner and his family members are demanding dowry. Respondent many times in the night used to take out money from the petitioners wallet without intimating the petitioner and thus, she has taken around Rs.1 to 1.25 lakhs from the pocket of the petitioner that was money of the employer as he was collecting money from various customers of his employer and he after collection comes to his residence and collection money was kept in his wallet. When the petitioner inquired from his wife she boldly stated that she has spent the money and quarreled on the said issue. The respondent assualted the petitioner and used filthy words. The respondent was wearing dresses and sarees which are not warranted or accepted in the middle class family or society. The respondent always used to force and threaten the petitioner to buy a flat in her name, when the petitioner tried to pursue her to understand that due to financial status he cannot purchase a flat she quarreled with the petitioner.
5. Further pleaded that the respondent was not doing the household work and also refuse to have relations and also says that she does not want any child from the petitioner. She threatened the petitioner that she will call her brother to Mumbai to teach a lesson to him and his family members and after making a quarrel threatened the petitioner and many a times locked the bedroom of the petitioner so, the petitioner slept in Varandah. One such incident happened on 13.02.2014 the respondent had called her brothers at the house of the maternal uncle Shri Dinesh Sancheti, at Mumbai on the behest of meeting her brother, the respondent insisted the petitioner to take her to uncles's house in Mumbai but petitioner told the respondent to call her brothers to their matrimonial house the respondent refused to do so. He sent his father and brother who went with respondent to his uncle's house at Mumbai. The responden
