Delhi High Court
Jai Dayal vs Shakuntala Devi on 10 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003VIIAD(DELHI)513, 107(2003)DLT33, II(2003)DMC497, 2003(71)DRJ156, AIR 2004 (NOC) 39 (DEL), (2003) 107 DLT 784, (2003) 2 DMC 497, (2004) 2 CIVLJ 74, (2003) 107 DLT 33, (2003) 71 DRJ 156, (2004) 1 CIVILCOURTC 628, (2004) 1 MARRILJ 650, (2004) 1 RECCIVR 570
Author: S.K. Mahajan
Bench: S.K. Mahajan
JUDGMENT S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. The appellant has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1998, whereby the Matrimonial Court had dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:
The parties were married according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 1.7.1971 and three children were born from this wedlock. Alleging that the appellant had treated her with cruelty, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Besides other allegations of ill-treatment of the respondent by the appellant it was alleged in the petition that the respondent crossed all limits when he levelled serious charges of immorality on the petitioner. It was alleged that the appellant issued a legal notice dated 6.12.1996, levelling serious allegations of immorality on the petitioner and her having illicit relations with one Mr. Kishore Kumar and then filed a complaint dated 9.5.1997, with the Commissioner of Police levelling similar allegations. This complaint was forwarded by the Commissioner of Police to SHO Police Station, Seelam Pur, Delhi and the respondent and the children were summoned by the concerned Officer. After inquiry the complaint was filed as the same was found to be false and baseless. These allegations, according to the respondent, tarnished the image of the respondent and her children and the same caused great mental pain and agony to her and amounted to mental cruelty. It was also alleged in the petition that the appellant again moved an application to the Commissioner of Police making crude, rubbish and shocking allegations against the respondent which resulted in the respondent getting shades of depression from which she could not recover till the filing of the petition. It was alleged that the willful and unjustified conduct of the appellant in making fake complaints and undermining the reputation of the respondent has not only affected the health and mental frame of mind of the respondent but the same has also developed an apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live with the appellant.
2. In reply to these allegations, the appellant has not denied in the written statement that he had levelled such allegations. He admitted having served the legal notices dated 6.12.1996 and having filed a complaint dated 9.5.1997 with the police for stopping the alleged wrongful interference of Kishore Kumar in the life of the parties.
3. On these pleadings of the parties the Matrimonial Court framed an issue as to "whether the appellant has treated the respondent with cruelty". After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing arguments the Matrimonial Court came to the conclusion that the levelling of false allegations by the appellant about the respondent having alleged illicit relations with Kishore Kumar amounted to mental cruelty. It was held that if a spouse makes false allegations about the character of other spouse, the same will amount to mental cruelty. The Court, therefore, held that the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty and accordingly dissolved marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. As already mentioned above, this decree has now been challenged by filing the present appeal.
4. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that allegations made by the appellant in the letter and the complaints under reference and admission made in his statement before Court cannot be looked in isolation but has to be taken into consideration in the broader perspective by looking into the circumstances in which the said allegations were made. It is submitted that the parties having lived happily for almost about 25 years, the marriage cannot be permitted to be dissolved only on one allegation and the appellant cannot be held to have treated the respondent with cruelty. It is submitted that even assuming the allegations made by the appellant were false, the Court should examine the circumstances in which they were made and they cannot be taken in isolation and the same, in any case, would not amount to mental cruelty which may entitle the respondent to seek dissolution of marriage. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as Jarnail Singh v. Shakuntala Devi, , and the judgment of this Court in Maya v. Brij Mohan, AIR 1982 Delhi.
5. In Jarnail Singh v. Shakuntala Devi, one of the grounds on which the marriage sought to be dissolved was that the wife in her written statement had stated that as the husband had illicit relations with another woman he had started maltreating her and had ultimately thrown her out of the house and also filed a defamation application under Section 500 of the IPC against her with a view to put pressure on her to get divorce. On these allegations the Court observed that the parties were married in the year 1957; 21 years had passed; 5 children were born of whom two daughters were of marriageable age and at that stage the family cannot be allowed to disrupt by divorce on the grounds which were not proved by the evidence produced by the husband.
6. It is thus seen that the High Court had dismissed the divorce petition only on the ground that the allegations made by the wife about the husband having illicit relations with another woman could not be proved by the husband. It was in these circumstances that the Court held that as the husband had not been able to prove the allegations made by her, no divorce can be granted to the husband on the ground of his having been treated with cruelty by the wife. This judgment, in my view, is of no assistance to the appellant.
7. In Maya v. Brij Nath (supra), it was held by the Court that the cruelty has not been defined but it was well settled that the conduct should be grave and weighty so as to make cohabitation virtually unendurable. It must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of marriage. It was held that a cumulative conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and background of the parties has to be examined to reach a conclusion whether the act amounts to cruelty. This judgment also, in my opinion, is of no assistance to the appellant as the question whether the allegations of illicit relationship made by the husband amounted to cruelty was not a point before the Court in that case.
8. In the notice sent on behalf of the appellant by his Counsel on 28.9.1996/ 6.12.1996 it was alleged that the respondent was living in the company of Kishore Kumar and she had developed illicit relations with him. It was also alleged that the said Mr. Kishore Kumar frequently visits the house of the appellant in his absence and instigates the respondent against the appellant. In a complaint made by the appellant to the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarter, Faridabad it was alleged by him that Kishore Kumar was having illicit relationship with the respondent and the respondent was also indulging in prostitution with other people and that Kishore Kumar was taking the respondent to different places and offices with a view to sell her flesh. Similar allegations were made in the letter written by the appellant to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. In his statement recorded by the Trial Court the appellant has admitted about his having made allegations about the illicit relations between the respondent and Mr. Kishore Kumar. He admitted the complaints and the notice referred to above having been written by him to the various authorities. It is thus clear that the appellant had levelled disgusting allegations of unchastity and indecent familiarity of the respondent with different persons outside wedlock and her having extra-marital relations with other persons. These themselves, in my opinion, will amount to cruelty.
9. In a judgment reported as Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, , it was held that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside the wedlock and allegations of extra-marital relationship constitute grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife and 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. 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. 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. Repeatedly writing letters to the authorities making slanderous allegations against the wife, in the words of the Supreme Court, lends credence to the fact that the husband was persisting with them for a sufficiently long time, humiliating and wounding the feelings of the wife to such an extent as to make insufferable for the wife to live in the matrimonial home any longer with the husband.
10. In view of the foregoing these allegations without anything else by themselves, in my opinion, amount to the appellant treating the respondent with cruelty causing reasonable apprehension in her mind that it is dangerous to live with the appellant. In my opinion, therefore, the Trial Court-was fully justified in dissolving the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce and no case had been made out to interfere with the same. There are no merits in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties, however, to bear their own costs.