Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Baby Verma vs Anil Verma on 21 August, 2024
1 / 11
2024:CGHC:31759-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 169 of 2022
Reserved on : 07/08/2024
Delivered on : 21/08/2024
Smt. Baby Verma W/o Anil Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Singhauri, Police Station, Tahsil And District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh, Present Resident Of House Number 55 Near
Garden, Atal Vihar Ward No. 3, Bemetara, Police Station Tahsil
& District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
Anil Verma S/o Dharam Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village
Singhauri, Tehsil & District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate
Digitally signed
by BHOLA DB: Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and
NATH KHATAI Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Date:
2024.08.22 C A V Judgment
16:59:29 +0530
Per Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, questioning the legality and propriety of judgment and decree dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Family Court, Bemetara, District 2 / 11 Bemetara (CG) in Civil Suit No.02-A/2022, whereby the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage and grant of a decree of divorce, has been allowed.
2. The averments, in brief, made in the application filed by the respondent/husband before the Family Court is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized 20-25 years ago according to Hindu rituals and customs. It was pleaded by the respondent/husband in the application that prior to 2016, the behavior of the appellant/wife was not proper with him and his family members. She was neither interested in domestic works nor did she cook nor did she give any answer when asked the reason by her husband. The appellant has been residing separately in Atal Avas, Mohbhatta, since 2016, along with two sons Prabhat and Sonal. The respondent went to bring the appellant on which she quarreled with him and threatened to implicate him in a false case, then the respondent reported to the Police. The appellant used to leave the house on the pretext of work and she used to stay with one Parasram Yadav throughout the day and would return in the evening. On complaining in this regard, Parasram Yadav executed a mutual agreement in favour of the respondent on 22.01.2018 in respect of keeping the appellant as his wife. The appellant had been in a relationship with Parasram Yadav even before he left the respondent, due to which, she has been harassing him to stay separately. The appellant has been living separately from the respondent for last 6 years. After his son Prabhat came to know about the character of appellant, he left her mother and has been living with him for about last 3 years. The appellant had filed an application for maintenance, in which, an order was passed to give maintenance to the 3 / 11 appellant and both the children Domendra and Prabhat. When Prabhat started living with him, he filed an application to cancel his maintenance, in which, an order was passed to cancel the maintenance granted to Prabhat on 08.01.2020. There has been no relationship between him and the appellant for last 08 years. Due to the above- mentioned cruel behaviour of the appellant, the respondent was unable to continue his marital relationship with the appellant. Hence, the respondent filed the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage between the parties and to grant decree of divorce.
3. The appellant/wife denying the allegations made by the respondent/husband has stated in her reply/written statement that the respondent is a suspicious person. The respondent and his family members always beat her and threw her out of the house, due to which, she started living in Mohbhatta with her two children and parents. The respondent has never come to take her till date. If the respondent and his family members take good care of her, then even today she is ready to live with the respondent. She has pleaded that she does not even know Parasram Yadav nor is she aware of the mutual settlement dated 22.01.2018. Sonal and Prabhat were residing with her but the respondent has kept Prabhat with him by luring him. The respondent and his family members often come to her house in Atal Vihar Colony and beat and abuse her. She is upset with the behavior of respondent and even today, keeping in mind the future of her child, she is ready to live together. But the respondent has not tried to keep her with him till date, rather while living separately from the respondent, she went to the house of respondent many times to live with him, but the respondent and his family 4 / 11 members did not allow her to enter. She is even today ready to follow the duty of a wife. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application for divorce filed by the respondent.
4. Learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings of the respective parties and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the application of the respondent/husband by the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.08.2022 and consequently dissolved the marriage between the parties. Hence, this appeal by the wife.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and perverse, as such liable to be set aside. He submits that the respondent has admitted in his cross examination that against him an FIR was lodged by the appellant for beating her from which it is clear that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent which compelled her to live separately along with her two sons. He submits that the respondent has not made any effort to bring the appellant back whereas the appellant is ready to live with the respondent if he keeps her properly. He submits that learned Family Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and committed an error by passing the impugned judgment and decree, hence the present appeal may be allowed by setting aside the same.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband, supporting the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, submits that after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Family Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference by this Court.
5 / 117. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.
8. In the case in hand, the respondent/husband (AW-1) has examined himself as well as his son Prabhat (AW-2) and his uncle Chamru Verma (AW-3). On the other hand, the appellant/wife (DW-1) has examined herself as well as her parents Om Singh (DW-2) and Rukhmani Bai (DW-3). It is not in dispute that marriage was solemnized between appellant and respondent as per Hindu rituals and customs and from their wedlock 3 sons namely Domendra, Sonal and Prabhat were born. It is quite clear from the evidence of all of them that the appellant/wife has been residing along with two sons Sonal and Prabhat at Atal Avas, Mohbhata since 2016 but for the last 3 years Prabhat has been residing with the respondent. The elder son Domendra is residing along with the respondent.
9. In order to find out the cruelty apart from a physical cruelty, mental cruelty has been defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh {(2007) 4 SCC 511} which is reproduced herein below:
101. "No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'.
The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it 6 / 11 becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be 7 / 11 adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."
8 / 1110. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the issue of extra marital affair allegation, in the matter of Narendra Vs. K. Meena, reported in AIR 2016 SC 4599 redirected the view taken in the matter of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate V. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2462 and held that when the assassination of character is made by either of the parties it would constitute a mental cruelty for which a claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus at para 13 :
"13.....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 extramarital 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. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible."
11. If we look at the evidence presented, as per the statement of the respondent/husband (AW-1), the appellant had an illicit 9 / 11 relationship with Parasram Yadav and therefore she left her in-laws house and started living separately at Atal Avas, Mohbhatta. This fact also stands corroborated from the statement of their son Prabhat who has stated that Parasram Yadav of village Singhori used to come to the house at Atal Avas and after knowing the relationship between her mother and Parasram, he started hating his mother and came back to his father and is living along with him. This fact also stands proved from the mutual agreement Ex. P-1 executed between Parasram Yadav and the respondent. The witness of this document Ex.P-1 Chamru Verma (AW-3) has been examined on behalf of the respondent who has also confirmed the agreement. It is mentioned in the said agreement as follows:
"मैं परस पिता परदेशी यादव, उम्र 43 वर्ष, निवासी वार्ड नं. 14 सिघौरी, तहसील,थाना-बेमेतरा, जिला-बेमेतरा, छ.ग. का निवासी हूं जो कि मैं बेबी वर्मा पति अनिल वर्मा, उम्र-28 वर्ष को मैं अपनी पत्नी के बतौर रखा हूं । मैं बेबी वर्मा के यहां जहां वह अटल आवास में निवास करती है , वहां आना- जाना करता हूं । बेबी वर्मा मेरी रखैल पत्नी है । अब अनिल वर्मा किसी भी प्रकार से मुझे हस्तक्षेप नहीं करेंगे । चूंकि बेबी वर्मा अब परस की पत्नी हो गयी है । बेबी वर्मा अब मेरी जवाबदारी है और दोनों बच्चे जो बेबी वर्मा के साथ रह रहे हैं प्रभात वर्मा एवं सोनल वर्मा वह अनिल वर्मा की जवाबदारी है । इसलिए यह आपसी समझौतानामा मेरे द्वारा (परस) अनिल वर्मा को दिया जा रहा है जो वक्त जरूरत पर काम आवे ।"
12. Chamru Verma (PW-3) has stated that after quarrel with her husband and in-laws, the appellant started living along with two sons in Atal Avas and then in her own house in Bemetara. He has stated that Prabhat has left her mother and is living with his father for the last three years. When he asked the reason for leaving his mother, Prabhat told him that the character of her mother was not good and she had a relationship with Parasram Yadav of village Singhori.
13. From the statement of the appellant as well as the respondent regarding non-establishment of physical relationship between them since 2016, the statement of their son Prabhat (AW-2), the statement of Chamru Verma, the Settlement Agreement Ex.P-1, the conduct of 10 / 11 appellant/wife and all the circumstances it is established that after marriage and before 2016 the appellant had illicit relationship with a man named Parasram Yadav and that is why she started living separately. However, the appellant/wife did not adduce any such evidence to substantiate her claim that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or any of his family members or that she also made efforts to reconcile and settle at her matrimonial home.
14. On the basis of the above discussion, we find that the evidence produced by the parties proves that the appellant/wife, had an illicit relationship with another person, Parasram Yadav, and therefore she left the house of respondent. This falls under the category of cruelty meted out to her husband. There is no evidence that the appellant herself has ever tried to come and live with her husband. The appellant/wife has admitted that she has been living separately since 2016, therefore, the ground of cruelty for divorce remains available to her husband.
15. Keeping in view the oral and documentary evidence on record; the admitted facts in this case and conduct of the appellant/wife, the finding recorded by the learned Family Court on the issue of cruelty against the wife and in favour of the husband, appears to be justified. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree warranting any interference by this Court.
16. However, considering the age of appellant and respondent and the fact that they have three major sons, appellant/wife has been residing separately since 2016, from the evidence it is also clear that she has never tried to come and live with her husband, cruelty also stands established against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and also to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and repetition of litigation 11 / 11 time and again, it is directed that the respondent/husband shall pay permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lac) to the appellant/wife as one-time settlement for all future claims including the claim for Stridhan by wife.
17. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/wife being devoid of any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid direction of permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/-.
18. A decree be drawn up accordingly. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE JUDGE
Khatai