Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Chander Sharma vs Renu Sharma on 22 June, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 .
Date of decision: 22.6.2016
Mahesh Chander Sharma. ...Appellant
Versus
Renu Sharma. ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
of Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: rt Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms.Devyani Sharma, Advocate.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J (oral).
This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein after referred to as the "Act") has been preferred by the husband against the judgment rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty came to be dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, wherein it was pleaded that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.11.1993. One son and one daughter were born out of the said wedlock, who were studying at Vidisha (MP) and expenses for the same were being borne by the appellant. It was alleged that after marriage the conduct of the respondent towards the appellant Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 2 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 and his family members was not good and she on trivial issues used to pick-up quarrel with them on trivial issues besides shunning the .
daily house hold chores. After 5-6 months of the marriage the respondent along with her brother went to her native place for fifteen days but did not come back despite being cajoled to come back to her matrimonial house by the appellant. However, as a last ditch of effort the appellant went to Kangra in 1996 and brought the respondent back to Vidisha, but the respondent again misbehaved rt with the appellant and his parents. Despite that in the year 1999 when the respondent fell ill the appellant bore all the expenses of her treatment and got her cured. The respondent tortured the mother of the appellant and owing to the said mental agony, the mother of the appellant expired in the year 2001. The respondent did not relent even thereafter which resulted in the appellant having been pushed to reside separately from his other family members in a separate house. Even this curative step did not yield the desired results in so far as ameliorating the relationship between the appellant and the respondent.
3. The appellant filed divorce petition in the year 2003 which as a consequence of compromise arrived at between the parties was withdrawn on 20.1.2004. On 17.8.2005 on the occasion of Raksha Bandan, the respondent without any cause picked up quarrel with the appellant. It was further averred that on 27.9.2005 all of sudden and without any reason the respondent went to her native place along with her children and later on her father filed a false complaint against the appellant at Vidisha. Precisely referring ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 3 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 to various incidents which had occurred after the withdrawal of the previous petition, the appellant exhibited all the events which .
according to him were definitely acrimonious between the appellant and the respondent resulting in filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. Apart from this, on 1.9.2005, the appellant claimed that the respondent in the presence of all people of vicinity abused the of appellant.
4. The averments made in the petition were rebutted by the rt respondent terming them as baseless and false and also brought to the notice of the Court that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
stands allowed in her favour.
5. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, if so, its effect, as alleged? OPP
2. Relief."
6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned Court below dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are totally perverse, as it has failed to take in to consideration the pleadings as also the evidence available on record.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.
7. The word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. To constitute cruelty the conduct complained should ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 4 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 be 'grave and weighty' so as to make cohabitation virtually unendurable. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty .
in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.
of
8. D. Tolstoy in his celebrated book "The Law and Practice of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes" (Sixth Edition, p. 61) has rt defined cruelty in the following words:
"Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger."
9. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines "cruelty" as "the quality of being cruel; disposition of inflicting suffering; delight in or indifference to another's pain; mercilessness; hard- heartedness".
10. The term "mental cruelty" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition, 2004) as under:
"Mental Cruelty - As a ground for divorce, one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse."
11. The concept of cruelty has been summarized in Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol.13, 4th Edition, Para 1269) as under:
"The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 5 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than .
its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as of their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that rt point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exits."
12. In 24 American Jurisprudence 2d, the term "mental cruelty" has been defined as under:
"Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct toward one's spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse's life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse."
13. The question regarding physical and mental cruelty in matrimonial matters has been elaborately dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 and it was held:-
"35. The petition for divorce was filed primarily on the ground of cruelty. It may be pertinent to note that, prior to the 1976 amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cruelty was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. It was only a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 6 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 the Act. By 1976 Amendment, the Cruelty was made ground for divorce. The words which have been incorporated are "as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other .
party". Therefore, it is not necessary for a party claiming divorce to prove that the cruelty treatment is of such a nature as to cause an apprehension reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him or her to live with the other party.
36. The Court had an occasion to examine the 1976 of amendment in the case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326, The Court noted that (SCC p. 337, para 30) "The enquiry has to be whether the conduct charges as rt cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent".
37. We deem it appropriate to examine the concept of 'Cruelty' both in English and Indian Law, in order to evaluate whether the appellant's petition based on the ground of cruelty deserves to be allowed or not.
38. D. Tolstoy in his celebrate book The Law and Practice of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, (6th Edn., p. 61) defined cruelty in these words:
"Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger."
39. The concept of cruelty in matrimonial matters was aptly discussed in the English case in Bertram v. Bertram (1944) 59,
60) per Scott, L.J. observed:
"Very slight fresh evidence is needed to show a resumption of the cruelty, for cruelty of character is bound to show itself in conduct and behaviour. Day in and day out, night in and night out."
40. In Cooper vs. Cooper (1950) WN 200 (HL), it was observed as under:
"It is true that the more serious the original offence, the less grave need be the subsequent acts to constitute a revival."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 7 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012
41. Lord Denning, L.J. in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky (1950) 2 All ER 398, 403 (All ER at p. 403 H) observed as under:
"If the door of cruelty were opened too wide, we should soon find ourselves granting divorce for incompatibility of .
temperament. This is an easy path to tread, especially in undefended cases. The temptation must be resisted lest we slip into a state of affairs where the institution of marriage itself is imperiled."
42. In England, a view was at one time taken that the petitioner in of a matrimonial petition must establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt but in Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 All ER 524, 536, the House of Lords held by a majority that so far as the grounds of rt divorce or the bars to divorce like connivance or condonation are concerned, "the case like any civil case, may be proved by a preponderance of probability".
43. The High Court of Australia in Wright v. Wright (1948) 77 CLR 191, 210 (CLR at p. 201) has also taken the view that "the civil and not the criminal standard of persuasion applies to matrimonial causes, including issues of adultery". The High Court was therefore in error in holding that the petitioner must establish the charge of cruelty "beyond reasonable doubt". The High Court adds that "This must be in accordance with the law of evidence", but we are not clear as to the implications of this observation."
44. Lord Pearce observed:
"It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of cruelty, but when reprehensible conduct or departure from the normal standards of conjugal kindness causes injury to health or an apprehension of it, it is, I think, cruelty if a reasonable person, after taking due account of the temperament and all the other particular circumstances would consider that the conduct complained of is such that this spouse should not be called on to endure it.
* * * I agree with Lord Merriman whose practice in cases of mental cruelty was always to make up his mind first whether there was injury or apprehended injury to health. In the light of that vital fact the court has then to decide whether the sum total of the reprehensible conduct was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 8 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 cruel. That depends on whether the cumulative conduct was sufficiently weighty to say that from a reasonable person's point of view, after a consideration of any excuse which this respondent might have in the circumstances, the .
conduct is such that this petitioner ought not to be called on to endure it.
* * *
The particular circumstances of the home, the
temperaments and emotions of both the parties
of
and their status and their way of life, their past relationship and almost every circumstance that attends the act or conduct complained of may all be relevant."
rt
45. Lord Reid in Gollins v. Gollins (1963) 2 All ER 966 (All ER p. 969 C-D) "No one has ever attempted to give a comprehensive definition of cruelty and I do not intend to try to do so. Much must depend on the knowledge and intention of the respondent, on the nature of his (or her) conduct, and on the character and physical or mental weaknesses of the spouses, and probably no general statement is equally applicable in all cases except the requirement that the party seeking relief must show actual or probable injury to life, limb or health."
46. The principles of law which have been crystallized by a series of judgments of this Court are recapitulated as under :-
In the case of Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan vs. Harizunnisa Yasinkhan (1981) 4 SCC 250, this Court stated that the concept of legal cruelty changes according to the changes and advancement of social concept and standards of living. With the advancement of our social conceptions, this feature has obtained legislative recognition, that a second marriage is a sufficient ground for separate residence and maintenance. Moreover, to establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. Continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference on the part of the husband, and an assertion on the part of the husband that the wife is unchaste are all factors which lead to mental or legal cruelty.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 9 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012
47. In Sbhoba Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105, this Court had an occasion to examine the concept of cruelty. The word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act in the context of .
human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin of as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to rt live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment.
48. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.
49. The Court went on to observe as under:
"5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked changed in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatized as cruelty in one case may not ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 10 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach .
importance. We, the judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep aside our customs and manners. It would be also better if we less depend of upon precedents. Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon, (1966) 2 All E.R. 257 (CA) 'the categories of cruelty are not closed'. Each case may be different. We rt deal with the conduct of human beings who are no generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty."
50. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, this Court had occasion to examine the concept of 'mental cruelty'. This Court observed as under:
"16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 11 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 in another case. It is a matter to be decided in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made."
.
51. The word 'cruelty' has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case.
of There may be instances of cruelty by unintentional but inexcusable conduct of any party. The cruel treatment may also result from the cultural conflict between the parties. Mental rt cruelty can be caused by a party when the other spouse levels an allegation that the petitioner is a mental patient, or that he requires expert psychological treatment to restore his mental health, that he is suffering from paranoid disorder and mental hallucinations, and to crown it all, to allege that he and all the members of his family are a bunch of lunatics. The allegation that members of the petitioner's family are lunatics and that a streak of insanity runs though his entire family is also an act of mental cruelty.
52. This Court in Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73, stated that mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other.
53. In this case, this Court further stated as under:
"9. Following the decision in Bipinchandra case AIR 1957 SC 176 this Court again reiterated the legal position in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena AIR 1964 SC 40 by holding that in its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent, and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 12 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 without reasonable cause. For the offence of desertion so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an .
end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. For of holding desertion as proved the inference may be drawn from certain facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same inference; that is to say the rt facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which is revealed by those acts or by conduct and expression of intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of separation."
In this case, this Court further stated that cruelty can be said to be an act committed with the intention to cause suffering to the opposite party.
54. This Court in Gananth Pattnaik vs. State of Orissa (2002) 2 SCC 619 observed as under: (SCC p.
622, para 7) "7. The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. "Cruelty" for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case."
55. This Court in Parveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706, defined cruelty as under: (SCC pp. 716-17, para 21) "21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 13 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and .
circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental rt cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subject to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other."
In this case the Court also stated that so many years have elapsed since the spouses parted company. In these circumstances it can be reasonably inferred that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably.
56. In Chetan Dass vs. Kamla Devi (2001) 4 SCC 250, this Court observed that the matrimonial matters have to be basically decided on its facts. In the words of the Court: (SCC pp. 258-59, para 14) "14. Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 14 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 the individuals as well as in broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well- knit, healthy and not a disturbed and porous society. The institution of marriage occupies an important .
place and role to play in the society, in general. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply any submission of "irretrievably broken marriage" as a straitjacket formula for grant of relief of divorce.
This aspect has to be considered in the
of
background of the other facts and circumstances of the case."
57. In Sandhya Rani vs. Kalyanram Narayanan reported in (1994) rt Supp. 2 SCC 588, this Court reiterated and took the view that since the parties are living separately for the last more than three years, we have no doubt in our mind that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. There is no chance whatsoever of their coming together. Therefore, the Court granted the decree of divorce.
58. In Chandrakala Menon vs. Vipin Menon (1993) 2 SCC 6, the parties had been living separately for so many years. This Court came to the conclusion that there is no scope of settlement between them because, according to the observation of this Court, the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of their coming together. This Court granted decree of divorce.
59. In Kanchan Devi vs. Promod Kumar Mittal (1996) 8 SCC 90, the parties were living separately for more than 10 years and the Court came to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had to be irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation and therefore the Court directed that the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.
60. In Swati Verma vs. Rajan Verma (2004) 1 SCC 123, a large number of criminal cases had been filed by the petitioner against the respondent. This Court observed that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably with a view to restore good relationship and to put a quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation, so that they may live peacefully hereafter, and on the request of the parties, in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 15 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court allowed the application for divorce by mutual consent filed before it under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and declared the marriage dissolved and granted .
decree of divorce by mutual consent.
61. In Prakash Chand Sharma vs. Vimlesh 1995 Supp (4) SCC 642, the wife expressed her will to go and live with the husband notwithstanding the presence of the other woman but the husband was not in a position to agree presumably because he has of changed his position by remarriage. Be that as it may, a reconciliation was not possible.
rt
62. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (supra), this Court while allowing the marriage to dissolve on ground of mental cruelty and in view of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the peculiar circumstances of the case, held that the allegations of adultery against the wife were not proved thereby vindicating her honour and character. This Court while exploring the other alternative observed that the divorce petition has been pending for more than 8 years and a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation and yet, the end is not in sight and that the allegations made against each other in the petition and the counter by the parties will go to show that living together is out of question and rapprochement is not in the realm of possibility. This Court also observed in the concluding part of the judgment that:
(SCC p. 351, para 21) "21. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to append a clarification. Merely because there are allegations and counter allegations, a decree of divorce cannot follow. Nor is mere delay in disposal of the divorce proceedings by itself a ground.
There must be really some extra- ordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on the basis of pleading (and other admitted material) without a full trial. Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself. But while scrutinising the evidence on record to determine whether the ground(s) alleged is/are made out and in determining the relief to be granted, the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind. The unusual step as the one taken by us herein can be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 16 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 resorted to only to clear up an insoluable mess, when the Court finds it in the interest of both parties."
63. Again in A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar, (2005) 2 SCC 22, a 3 .
judge Bench of this Court observed that: (SCC pp. 29-31, paras 10-14) "10. the expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to of cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a rtdanger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:14 :::HCHP 17 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.
11. The expression 'cruelty' has been used in relation to .
human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other.
The cruelty may be mental or physical,
of
intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem rt presents difficulties. First, begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the the enquiry must impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.
However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted (See Sobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105).
12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law.
Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 18 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, .
which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live of together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely rt essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.
13. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 19 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent.
14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance .
to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in of determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their rt character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court.
64. In Durga P.Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 353, this Court further observed that Marriages are made in heaven.
Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce.
65. In Lalitha v. Manickswamy, I (2001) DMC 679 SC that the had cautioned in that case that unusual step of granting the divorce was being taken only to clear up the insoluble mess when the Court finds it in the interests of both the parties."
14. Thereafter, the concept of cruelty has been dealt with in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malathi Ravi M.D. Vs. B.V. Ravi, M.D. (2014) 7 SCC 640, wherein the development of law after the year 2006 was noticed in the following terms:-
"26. In Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur (2009) 1 SCC 422 this Court had accepted what the High Court had taken note of despite the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 20 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 fact that it was a subsequent event. It is necessary to reproduce the necessary paragraphs from the said decision to perceive the approach of this Court: (SCC pp. 437-38, paras 46-47) "46. The High Court further noted that the appellant wife .
sent a notice through her advocate to the respondent husband during the pendency of mediation proceedings in the High Court wherein she alleged that the respondent was having another wife in USA whose identity was concealed. This was based on the fact that in his income of tax return, the husband mentioned the social security number of his wife as 476-15-6010, a number which did not belong to the appellant wife, but to some American rt lady (Sarah Awegtalewis).
47. The High Court, however, recorded a finding of fact accepting the explanation of the husband that there was merely a typographical error in giving social security number allotted to the appellant which was 476-15- 6030.
According to the High Court, taking undue advantage of the error in social security number, the appellant wife had gone to the extent of making serious allegation that the respondent had married an American woman whose social security number was wrongly typed in the income tax return of the respondent husband.
29. Before we proceed to deal with the issue of mental cruelty, it is appropriate to state how the said concept has been viewed by this Court. In Vinit Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778, while dealing with the issue of mental cruelty, the Court held as follows: (SCC pp. 796-97, paras 31 & 35) -
"31. It is settled by a catena of decisions that mental cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of the injured appellant such apprehension as is contemplated in the section. It is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, there must be such wilful treatment of the party which caused suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 21 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012
* * *
35. Each case depends on its own facts and must be judged on these facts. The concept of cruelty has varied from time to time, from place to place and from individual to .
individual in its application according to social status of the persons involved and their economic conditions and other matters. The question whether the act complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the whole facts and the matrimonial relations between the parties. In this of connection, the culture, temperament and status in life and many other things are the factors which have to be considered."
rt
30. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, this Court has given certain illustrative examples wherefrom inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. The Court itself has observed that they are illustrative and not exhaustive. We think it appropriate to reproduce some of the illustrations: (SCC pp. 546-47, para 101) "(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 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.
* * *
(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.
* * *
(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.
* * * ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 22 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012
(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.
* * *
of
(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 rt 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.
31. In the said case the Court has also observed thus: (SCC pp. 545-46, paras 99-100) "99. The human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in the other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 23 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 201232. In Vishwanath Agrawal, v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, while dealing with mental cruelty, it has been opined thus: (SCC p. 298, para 22) " 22. The expression cruelty has an inseparable nexus with .
human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status."
of
33. In the said case, analyzing the subsequent events and the conduct of the wife, who was responsible for publication in a newspaper certain humiliating aspects about the husband, the rt Court held as follows: (SCC p. 307, para 54) "54. In our considered opinion, a normal reasonable man is bound to feel the sting and the pungency. The conduct and circumstances make it graphically clear that the respondent wife had really humiliated him and caused mental cruelty. Her conduct clearly exposits that it has resulted in causing agony and anguish in the mind of the husband. She had publicised in the newspapers that he was a womaniser and a drunkard. She had made wild allegations about his character. She had made an effort to prosecute him in criminal litigations which she had failed to prove. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, agony and frustration of the husband is obvious."
34. In U. Sree v. U. Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114, the Court, taking note of the deposition of the husband that the wife had consistently ill treated him inasmuch as she had shown her immense dislike towards his sadhna in music and had exhibited total indifference to him, observed as follows: (SCC p. 127, para
23) "23. It has graphically been demonstrated that she had not shown the slightest concern for the public image of her husband on many an occasion by putting him in a situation of embarrassment leading to humiliation. She has made wild allegations about the conspiracy in the family of her husband to get him remarried for the greed of dowry and there is no iota of evidence on record to substantiate the same. This, in fact, is an aspersion not ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 24 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 only on the character of the husband but also a maladroit effort to malign the reputation of the family.
35. In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226,, while .
dealing with the instances of mental cruelty, the court opined that to the illustrations given in the case of Samar Ghosh certain other illustrations could be added. We think it seemly to reproduce the observations: (SCC p. 234, para 16) "16. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations of against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the rt job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse."
15. Before adverting to the merits of the allegations, it would also be necessary to understand the very institution of marriage itself. This task has been made easier by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malathi Ravi case (supra), wherein the institution of marriage was described in the following terms:-
"Marriage as a social institution is an affirmance of civilized social order where two individuals, capable of entering into wedlock, have pledged themselves to the institutional norms and values and promised to each other a cemented bond to sustain and maintain the marital obligation. It stands as an embodiment for continuance of the human race. Despite the pledge and promises, on certain occasions, individual incompatibilities, attitudinal differences based upon egocentric perception of situations, maladjustment phenomenon or propensity for non-adjustment or refusal for adjustment gets eminently projected that compels both the spouses to take intolerable positions abandoning individual responsibility, proclivity of asserting superiority complex, betrayal of trust which is the cornerstone of life, and sometimes a pervert sense of revenge, a dreadful diet, or sheer sense of envy bring the cracks in the relationship when either both the spouses or one ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 25 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 of the spouses crave for dissolution of marriage - freedom from the institutional and individual bond."
16. Now adverting to the evidence led by the parties, it .
would be seen that PW-1 Mahesh Chander, appellant in his examination-in-chief tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, re-iterating therein the contents of the petition. It was stated that the of respondent after withdrawal of the earlier petition on 20.1.2004 had again started misbehaving with the appellant and has also cited rt certain incidents like in 2005 the respondent openly abused him on the occasion of Raksha Bandan. In the month of August, 2005 he had gone to Ganj Basoda, where too the respondent misbehaved and thereafter on 1.9.2005 the respondent again openly abused the petitioner by using filthy language and even threatened to kill him.
It was then stated that in the month of September, 2005, the respondent along with children secretly left the matrimonial home and came to her native place where she continued to reside. It was also claimed that the respondent had been leveling false allegations regarding demand of dowry, as also giving of beatings to her. It was lastly stated that now it was impossible for them to live together as husband and wife and therefore, the marriage performed between them be dissolved. The witness also tendered in evidence Ex. P-1 to P-8, but the same were subject to the objections raised by the respondent with respect to mode of proof.
17. In cross-examination, the petitioner denied that he had started giving beatings to the respondent for want of dowry, constraining her to left the matrimonial home. However, it was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 26 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 admitted that respondent had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the same had been allowed by the Court. It was also .
admitted that presently both the children were residing with the respondent at Jawali. He admitted that the respondent's father was running a tea stall and his economic condition was not good. He further admitted that he had not filed any case to take back the of children.
18. PW-2 Arun Jain tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-2/A and in rt his examination-in-chief has stated that the petitioner was his friend and their houses were adjoining to each other. He further stated that the behavior of the respondent towards petitioner was not good and she used to abuse him and had even threatened that she would implicate him in a suicide case. It was also stated that even after the withdrawal of the earlier petition the respondent had not improved her behavior and along with her father had filed a false complaint even when the petitioner had been residing at Ganj Basoda.
19. PW-3 Ramesh Chander in his examination-in-chief has tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-3/A, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is his son and the respondent is daughter-in-law. It is stated that the respondent under the influence of her Jija used to abuse the petitioner and rest of the family and in fact his wife i.e. mother of the petitioner died due to this reason. He further stated that he initially thought that the respondent want to reside separately, therefore, the petitioner was made to reside in a separate house, but this too had no effect on the behavior of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 27 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 respondent. He further stated that on occasions of festivals the respondent would abuse the petitioner and his other family .
members including himself.
20. PW-4, Ranu Kushwaha in her examination-in-chief has tendered affidavit Ex. PW-4/A, wherein it has been stated that the parties were known to her and she used to reside with them. It was of further stated that the respondent used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner on very trivial and uncalled for reasons and this usually rt happened at the time of a fair or festival. It was further stated that even after withdrawal of the earlier case, there was no improvement in the behavior of the respondent, which continued to the quarrelsome.
21. As against this, the respondent in her examination-in-
chief tendered her affidavit Ex. RW-1/A, re-iterating the contents of the reply. It was specifically stated that the petitioner has intention to marry another girl in Madhya Pradesh and had started maltreating and beating the respondent and on 27.9.2005 she was ousted from the matrimonial home, thereby compelling her to come to the house of her parents. She further stated that she had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Court and the said order had been upheld even by this Court. She further goes to state that the petitioner had been physically and mentally torturing her.
22. In cross-examination, the witness denied having left the matrimonial house without any reasonable cause. She also denied that she used to abuse the petitioner and his family members or had not been preparing and cooking food for the petitioner. She further ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 28 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 denied that she had never been given beatings, nor demand of dowry had been raised by the petitioner.
.
23. RW-2, Devki Nandan, farther of the respondent, in his examination-in-chief has filed affidavit Ex. RW-2/A, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is a lecturer in school and had compelled the respondent to leave her matrimonial home. In cross-
of examination he admitted that he had lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the Chief Minister as also with the Women Cell rt (Mahila Ayog). However, he denied that he used to file false cases against the petitioner and further denied the suggestion that the respondent had left the matrimonial home on her own and without any reasonable cause.
24. RW-3, Brij Lal in his examination-in chief has filed affidavit Ex. RW-3/A, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had compelled the respondent to leave her matrimonial home by giving beatings to her. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely, that too on hearsay basis.
25. This in its entirety is the oral and documentary evidence, led by both the parties.
26. There is no dispute that the marriage inter se the parties had been solemnized on 30.11.1993 and the appellant earlier filed a divorce petition Ex. P-1, that too on the ground of cruelty and the same was withdrawn on 20.1.2004 vide Ex. P-4. Even this petition has been filed on the ground of cruelty, in which both the parties have lead their oral and documentary evidence. However, before ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 29 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 proceeding to consider the pleadings and the evidence, this Court would have to advert to Section 23 of the Act, which reads thus:-
.
"23. Decree in proceedings.-- (1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that---
(a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner 47 [except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-clause (a), sub-clause
(b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any of way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and
(b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified 48 rt in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty, and (bb) when a divorce is sought on the ground of mutual consent, such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence, and]
(c) the petition (not being a petition presented under section 11)] is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent, and
(d) there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding, and
(e) there is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted, then, and in such a case, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly. (2) Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in clause (ii), clause (iii), clause (iv), clause (v), clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 13.] (3) For the purpose of aiding the court in bringing about such reconciliation, the court may, if the parties so desire or if the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 30 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 court thinks it just and proper so to do, adjourn the proceedings for a reasonable period not exceeding fifteen days and refer the matter to any person named by the parties in this behalf or to any person nominated by the .
court if the parties fail to name any person, with directions to report to the court as to whether reconciliation can be and has been, effected and the court shall in disposing of the proceeding have due regard to the report.] (4) In every case where a marriage is dissolved by a decree of of divorce, the court passing the decree shall give a copy thereof free of cost to each of the parties.]"
27. Bearing in mind the aforesaid provision, it would be rt noticed that para 6 of the petition contain facts, which were there even in the earlier petition. However, it is thereafter averred that on 20.1.2004 respondent resided together with the appellant and behaved properly for 2-3 months and thereafter again started abusing and misbehaving with the appellant and his family members. Similarly, in para 9, it has been averred that on 1.9.2005, respondent abused the appellant in presence of the Mohala and also threatened to kill him. It was thus proved that the appellant has in fact condoned the acts of the respondent and this fact has to be borne in mind while granting or refusing relief to the petitioner.
28. In addition to the aforesaid, it would be noticed that the respondent has been awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the said order has attained finality up to this Court. This obviously means that the respondent had not parted the company of the appellant without there being any reasonable cause. It has also come in evidence of the appellant while appearing as PW-1 that he has taken no steps whatsoever to take custody of the children and therefore, in such circumstances, this petition appears to have been ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP 31 FAO (HMA) No. 302 of 2012 filed only to get rid of the respondent and their children and does indicate that there is some iota of truth in the allegation leveled by .
the respondent against the petitioner that he has intention to marry another girl in Madhya Pradesh, as stated by her in her examination-in-chief Ex. RW-1/A.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in of this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.
rt (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
Judge.
22nd May, 2016
(KRS)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:15 :::HCHP