Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hridesh Tiwari vs Smt. Sarita Tiwari on 30 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1777
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
-( 1 )- FA No. 93/2017
Hridesh Tiwari vs. Smt. Sarita Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH
BEFORE: SHEEL NAGU
AND
RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
First Appeal No. 93/2017
Hridesh Tiwari
Versus
Smt. Sarita Tiwari
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Prasun Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(30/11/2019) Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.:
In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the judgment and decree dated 9.3.2017 passed in Case No. 81/2015 HMA, by which the Family Court, Gwalior (Circuit Bench Datia) has rejected the petition preferred by the appellant under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned judgment and decree, few facts need mentioned which are stated infra.
2. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 5.5.2011 at Urai, District Jalon (UP). It is the case of the appellant that the respondent was never satisfied with the living standard of the family members of the appellant and used to pass adverse and insulting comments on the family members of the appellant. She had been demanding huge amount for shopping in -( 2 )- FA No. 93/2017 Hridesh Tiwari vs. Smt. Sarita Tiwari Delhi and on account of non-fulfillment of her demand, she left the matrimonial home at Datia and went to parental home at Urai. Thereafter, appellant brought her to his service place at Mumbai where she used to misbehave and insult the appellant for not fulfilling her demand of huge amount to spend including dinner in 5-Star Hotels. She also used to refuse cooking food. She had never shown any kind of love or affection towards the appellant and used to pass insulting comments for his earnings. Ultimately the respondent left the appellant as the appellant was unable to fulfill her requirements and unrealistic demand of Rs.1,00,000/- per month whereas the appellant's salary was around Rs.40,000/- only. The appellant thereafter filed a petition under Section 13(1A) of Hindu Marriage Act for seeking decree of divorce, which was denied by the trial Court and the petition for divorce was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this first appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has misinterpreted the statement of appellant Hridesh Tiwari (PW1), Munni Tiwari (PW2) and independent witness Meera Joshi (PW3), who all stated that respondent was in habit of misbehaving with the appellant and his family member. It is further submitted that the Court below failed to consider that the respondent lodged a false report to Police Station Urai under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 213/34 of IPC against the appellant and his entire family, which was ended in favour of the appellant for want of evidence vide report dated 22.12.2013. Other applications under Section 125 of CrPC and under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are also pending against the appellant. This itself shows cruelty against the -( 3 )- FA No. 93/2017 Hridesh Tiwari vs. Smt. Sarita Tiwari appellant on the part of the respondent. Hence, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the application under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be allowed.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of instant first appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
6. The word 'cruelty' is used in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which reads as under :-
"13. Divorce.-- (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party--
(i) xx xx xx (ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;"
7. The trial Court has observed in impugned judgment that the appellant has failed to prove that cruelty was inflicted by his wife. There is no sufficient evidence on record whereby such conclusion can be drawn that cruelty was performed by his wife as the statements given in examination-in-chief were rebutted in cross- examination. It appears from the evidence that there were some disputes between the appellant and the respondent but the same cannot be said to be disputes amounting to cruelty.-( 4 )- FA No. 93/2017
Hridesh Tiwari vs. Smt. Sarita Tiwari
8. Under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 'mental cruelty' broadly means, when either party causes mental pain, agony or suffering of such a magnitude that it severs the bond between the wife and the husband and as a result of which it becomes impossible for the party who has suffered to live with the other party. In other words, the party who has committed wrong is not expected to live with the other party. It is in this background, it cannot be said that the act by the respondent comes within the meaning of 'mental agony'. Now-a-days use of face book is very common feature and dispute arising out of it, is not cruelty as is the case herein.
9. In the light of above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Sheel Nagu) (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
(Yog) Judge Judge
YOGESH VERMA
2019.12.02
13:26:55 +05'30'