Back
2003(3) Supreme 416
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Mumbai High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate -Appellant
versus
Neela Vijaykumar Bhate -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7200-7201 of 2001
Decided on 16-4-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.N. Ganpule, Sr. Advocate and S.M. Jadhav, Advocate.
Held : The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. (Para 7)
Further held : That apart, in our view, even the fact that the application for amendment seeking for deletion of the accusations made in the written statement was ordered and amendments carried out subsequently does not absolve the husband in this case, from being held liable for having treated the wife with cruelty by making earlier such injurious reproaches and statements, due to their impact when made and continued to remain on record. To satisfy the requirement of clause (i-a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, it is not as though the cruel treatment for any particular duration or period has been statutorily stipulated to be necessary. As to what constitute the required mental cruelty for purposes of the said provision, in our view, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct, but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home. If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the Courts perhaps need consider the further question as to whether their continuance or persistence over a period time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be a so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonable conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer. A conscious and deliberate statement levelled with pungency and that too placed on record, through the written statement, cannot so lightly be ignored or brushed aside, to be of no consequence merely because it came to be removed from the record only. (Para 11)
Key Points: - Wife filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty; trial court granted decree based on husband's allegations of unchastity in written statement, despite later amendment withdrawing them (!) (!) - High Court affirmed trial court's decision, finding husband's accusations constituted mental cruelty; husband's appeal for restitution of conjugal rights dismissed (!) [1000078010001] - Supreme Court held that levelling accusations of unchastity and extra-marital relations is a grave assault on wife's character, honour, and reputation, amounting to worst form of insult and cruelty sufficient for divorce [judgement_subject][1000078010006] - Such allegations in written statement satisfy legal requirements for cruelty, even if made in pleadings or cross-examination [1000078010006] - Subsequent amendment deleting accusations does not absolve husband of cruelty, as impact persists; cruelty assessed by intensity and stigmatic impact, not duration or frequency (!) [1000078010010] - Husband's reply dated 17.1.90 reaffirmed allegations, rendering withdrawal insincere; trial court order on amendment clarified it does not erase prior reliance (!) [1000078010008][1000078010009] - Courts below correctly relied on original written statement allegations, which were deliberate, pungent, and persisted over time, making matrimonial home untenable [1000078010007][1000078010010] - Supreme Court dismissed husband's appeals, confirming divorce decree and finding no scope for reconciliation given mutual hatred [1000078010011] (!)
JUDGMENT
D. Raju, J.-The above appeals have been filed by the husband, who lost before both the courts below, challenging the orders granting dissolution of the marriage solemnized between parties on 10th June, 1973 at the instance of the respondent wife and dismissing the petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and custody the two daughters. The wife filed M.J. Petition No.382 of 1983 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty said to have been meted out to the wife. In support of her claim, the wife narrated several instances of harassment and nagging attitude, which caused her mental agony and serious set back in health. These were ultimately considered and viewed by the learned Family Court Judge to be mere normal wear and tear of marital life. But at the same time, the allegations made by the husband, extensively with enumeration of instances and incidents against wife branding her as an unchaste woman, keeping illicit relations - sexually and otherwise with one Ramesh Sawant, the son of a neighbour, though subsequently withdrawn by seeking an amendment of the written statement, weighed with the court to uphold the claim of the wife for divorce. The manner of narration and claims of such allegations in the written statement was also considered to be per se indicative of the fact that he made such allegations against her not only when they were living together but also to her relatives, friends and persons whom he had contacted for reconciliation. The learned trial judge was also of the view that notwithstanding the withdrawal, in a reply filed on 17.1.90 also, those allegations were considered to have been substantially reiterated by the husband. Consequently, the Family Court allowed M.J. Petition No.382 of 1988 on 7.4.1994. As a sequel to the same, the application in M.J. Petition No.66 of 1983 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights and custody of the daughters tried simultaneously with the other petition came to be rejected by a separate order on that very date of judgment granting dissolution of marriage between parties.
2. The appellant filed Family Court Appeal No.56 of 1994 against the dismissal of M.J. Petition No.66 of 1988 and Family Court Appeal No.57 of 1994 against the order granting divorce in M.J. Petition No.382 of 1983 filed by the wife. The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay passed a detailed judgment in FCA No.57 of 1994 affirming the order of the family court granting divorce and rejected the appeal on 4.10.2000. At the same time, by a separate order the other appeal in FCA No.56 of 1994 was also dismissed, on the same date. Consequently, these appeals came to be filed by the husband.
3. Though notice was served in the appeals on the respondent, she did not choose to enter appearance in person or through counsel. But she had sent a reply contesting the claims of the appellant in the appeals filed before this court.
4. Shri V.N. Ganpule, learned senior counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the judgments of the courts below could not be sustained as they have mainly been based upon certain averments made in the written statement filed in M.J. Petition No.382 of 1983, which were got deleted and withdrawn by seeking for and obtaining orders by way of amendment to the written statement on 16.9.1988 itself. All the more so, according to the learned counsel, when the other grievances made in the petition filed to substantiate the claim of cruelty, came to be rejected as matter of normal wear and tear in matrimonial life, not amounting to cruelty so as to justify the grant of divorce on them alone. It is further urged on behalf of the appellant that there is still scope left with parties for reconciliation and if only the decree for divorce is set aside, there is room for restitution of the marital relationship between parties
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
