Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh vs Usha on 9 September, 2014
FAO No.M-112 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.M-112 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
RAKESH ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
SMT. USHA ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON.
1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes
----
PRESENT: MR. LEKH RAJ SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT.
MR. ASHISH PANNU, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT.
M. JEYAPAUL, J.
1. The appellant-husband has challenged the dismissal of his petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
2. The appellant has founded his petition for divorce on the allegation that the behaviour of his wife towards him and his family members ever since the date of marriage that took place on 21.4.2008 was cruel. A female child born out of the wedlock on 1.4.2010 unfortunately passed away. The respondent did not give respect to the appellant or his parents. She refused to cook food, wash clothes and prepare tea. She often used to abuse him openly in the presence of his family members. She insisted to live separately. She raised a demand to purchase a separate house in Panipat city so that they might live separately from his parents. She even threatened to get him and his parents implicated in false criminal SUMIT GULATI 2014.09.16 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-112 of 2013 -2- cases. On 20.4.2010, Dilbagh Singh, the father of the respondent came alongwith one Ram Niwas of village Ugra Kheri and beat the appellant and forced him to leave his house. The appellant has been living at Panipat in a room on rent. On 25.7.2010, the father of respondent, Dilbag Singh and the said Ram Niwas and his sons again visited the house of the appellant at village Badoli and beat his mother and sisters. They also compelled his mother and sisters to leave their ancestral house. Now they are also living at Panipat in a rented room since then. On 9.10.2010, the father of the respondent, the aforesaid Ram Niwas and his sons again visited the ancestral house of the appellant and beat his father mercilessly. The father of the appellant got admitted in Civil Hospital, Panipat. With the above allegations, the appellant has sought for divorce.
3. The respondent filed written statement stoutly denying the allegation that she refused to cook food or wash clothes. She never abused the petitioner and his family members. Her father Dilbag Singh, Ram Niwas and his sons never visited the matrimonial home and beat the appellant, his parents and sisters. They themselves left the house on their own just to make it a false ground for getting the decree of divorce. She never picked up a quarrel with the appellant or his family members. The appellant has come out with false and frivolous grounds for divorce. Therefore, the respondent has prayed that the petition filed by the appellant may be dismissed.
4. On the side of the appellant, he was examined as PW1. His father Bharat Singh was examined as PW2. The ex-Sarpanch of village Badoli by the name of Shish Pal was examined as PW3 and the SUMIT GULATI 2014.09.16 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-112 of 2013 -3- Addl.Ahlmad who produced the file of the complaint case lodged by PW2 was examined as PW4. The certified copy of the complaint dated 11.12.2010 filed by PW2 was marked as Ex.P1. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate thereupon was marked as Ex.P2.
5. On the side of the respondent, the respondent was examined as RW1. Krishan Pal and Ram Pal, the relatives of RW1 were examined as RW2 and RW3 respectively.
6. The trial Court having adverted to the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish the allegation of cruelty made in the complaint. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband.
7. Though cruelty has not been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it has been held in catena of cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that cruelty could be of two kinds, Physical Cruelty and Mental Cruelty. The abusive language used by one spouse against the other to such an extent that the other spouse feels mentally tortured and humiliated would amount to Mental Cruelty. Physical violence perpetrated by one spouse as against the other would amount to Physical Cruelty. If cruelty is established by one spouse as against the other, a dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce can be granted.
8. In the instant case, the appellant has alleged that the respondent refused to cook food, wash clothes and prepare tea. Of course, the respondent stoutly denied such allegation made by her husband. It is a matter of record that the appellant and the respondent are well educated persons. The husband cannot insist that all the household works should be SUMIT GULATI 2014.09.16 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-112 of 2013 -4- carried out only by the wife and the wife also cannot insist that all the household chores should be done by the husband alone. They have to perform the household chores taking into account the professional work or commercial activity to be performed by the respective spouses. In other words, a spouse who performs volume of professional or commercial work outside the home is expected to do minimum work at the house. Mutual adjustment between the spouse would largely solve such petty issues that are bound to crop-up in the daily matrimonial life. But, at any rate, the refusal on the part of the wife to cook food, wash clothes and prepare tea cannot be construed as cruelty committed by the wife against the husband.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has let-in evidence to establish that the respondent insisted for separate residence by purchasing a house in Panipat to live away from the parents of the appellant. It is an admitted position that the respondent is in fact living in the matrimonial house itself. It is only the appellant and his family members who have gone over to Panipat for establishing separate residence.
10. In this context, it is effectively contended by the respondent that the appellant has set up a separate residence at Panipat in order to make a ground for divorce. For very many reasons a wife may request her husband to establish a separate house for living. She might have felt uncomfortable in the company of the parents of the husband. Under such circumstances, there is nothing wrong for the wife to make such a demand. We also did not find any fault in the demand of the wife to purchase a house in Panipat city for separate establishment. But the fact remains that the wife SUMIT GULATI 2014.09.16 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-112 of 2013 -5- has categorically denied such a demand made by her. The above denial of the wife is fortified by the fact situation that she continues to live in the matrimonial home itself. Under such circumstances, in our view, it is far- fetched an imagination to say that the respondent demanded a separate residence at Panipat. At any rate, such a demand made by the wife cannot be construed as cruelty committed by the wife.
11. There is a specific allegation made by the appellant that his father-in-law Dilbag Singh came alongwith one Ram Niwas of village Ugra Kheri to his house on 20.4.2010 and beat him and forced him to leave his house. Since then he has been residing at Panipat in a room on rent. No husband would tolerate beating given by his father-in-law. He would have definitely felt humiliated. Further, it is the version of the appellant that he was forced to leave his house and as a result of which he has taken a house on rent at Panipat. Such an occurrence in the normal course would definitely culminate in a criminal case at the instance of the husband. It is quite unimaginable that a father-in-law would separate the son-in-law from his daughter who is residing in the matrimonial home. We do not find any truth in the above allegation made by the appellant.
12. It is alleged that on 25.7.2010, the father-in-law of the appellant came alongwith the said Ram Niwas and his sons to village Badoli and beat his mother and sisters and compelled them to leave their ancestral house. As per the above version of the appellant, not only his father-in-law, but third parties were also involved by his father-in-law to attack his mother and sisters. A spouse may bear with some ill-treatment meted out by other spouse, but not by the relatives of the spouse. It is normally expected of the SUMIT GULATI 2014.09.16 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-112 of 2013 -6- mother and sisters of the appellant to lodge a complaint as they were not only beaten up, but were also driven away from their ancestral house. There is nothing on record to show that any such complaint was lodged with the police. The appellant had alleged that he has set up a residence at Panipat having been driven away from his ancestral house at village Badoli. There would have been no occasion for him to witness the occurrence that took place on 25.7.2010. The mother and sisters of the appellant are the relevant witnesses who could throw some light on the occurrence which allegedly took place on 25.7.2010. The mother and sisters of the appellant had not entered into the witness box to substantiate the allegation made by the appellant. In our view, the above occurrence also was not established by the appellant.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit referring to Ex.P1, certified copy of the complaint dated 11.12.2010 lodged byPW2 Bharat Singh, the father of the appellant and Ex.P2, certified copy of the order dated 4.8.2011 passed in the said complaint by competent Court that there are documentary proofs to show that the father-in-law of the appellant Dilbag Singh and Ram Niwas and his sons visited the ancestral house of the appellant and beat his father mercilessly. We find that there is no merit in the above submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. Firstly, for an occurrence which allegedly took place on 9.10.2010, a private complaint had been lodged by PW2 Bharat Singh only on 11.12.2010, well after the present petition for divorce was filed by the appellant on 21.10.2010. Such a private complaint which had been filed after the institution of the petition for divorce could be very well cooked up and SUMIT GULATI 2014.09.16 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-112 of 2013 -7- doctored to suit the grounds set up in the petition. Further, the said complaint is pending at a pre-cognizance stage. To top it all, we find that there was no allegation that the respondent was instrumental in engineering such an assault which culminated in the above complaint. Even if we presume that there was such an attack launched by father of the respondent alongwith some other persons, the respondent cannot be held responsible for such an act and consequently, cruelty cannot be attributed to her. We have also noted that though there is a specific allegation that PW2 was admitted to hospital for treatment on account of the injuries he sustained, no medical records have been produced to establish such an allegation. We find that the occurrence allegedly took place on 9.10.2010, in the above facts and circumstances, also cannot be projected as cruelty attributable to the respondent.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is evidence to show that abusive language had been used by the respondent against the appellant and his family members. We find that the appellant has come out with a general allegation that some abusive language was used by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent has stoutly denied use of any abusive language against the appellant and his family members. It is his further submission that the evidence on record does not establish the allegation that abusive language was used by the respondent.
15. In a matrimonial life, there are occasions where certain amount of tension would prevail. There may be some heated exchanges between the husband and wife. Abusive language might have been exchanged freely SUMIT GULATI 2014.09.16 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-112 of 2013 -8- between the husband and the wife. In such a circumstance, abusive language which was used at the spur of the moment without any intention to humiliate the other spouse cannot be construed as cruelty committed by one spouse as against the other. Further, what sort of abusive language which humiliated the appellant was not amply demonstrated by the appellant in the instant case.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant cited a decision passed by the Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Smt.Abha Aggarwal vs. Sunil Aggarwal, AIR 2000 All 377. That was a case where mental cruelty caused to the husband was established by reliable evidence adduced by the husband himself. Here, in the instant case, the allegation of cruelty has not been established by the evidence adduced by the appellant.
17. In our considered view, the trial Court has rightly taken a decision to dismiss the petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. There is no merit in the appeal and therefore, it stands dismissed.
(M. JEYAPAUL)
JUDGE
September 9, 2014 (DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON)
Gulati JUDGE
SUMIT GULATI
2014.09.16 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document