Uttarakhand High Court
Hemlata vs Khadak Singh Mehra on 14 September, 2017
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sharad Kumar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
First Appeal No. 16 of 2015
Hemlata W/o Sri Khadak Singh Mehra ......Appellant
Versus
Khadak Singh Mehra ...... Respondent.
Present:
Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. L.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent.
Reserved Judgment
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Dated: 14th September, 2017 Per Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
On being aggrieved by grant of a decree of divorce, granted in favour of the husband by the Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, vide its judgment dated 25th November, 2014, the appellant wife has challenged the judgment on various grounds, primarily, the grounds which are enumerated hereunder :-
The wife has taken a ground in the instant appeal that the allegations levelled by the husband before the Court below, while seeking the decree of divorce, the learned Court below has committed an error by holding that the behavior of the appellant towards the respondent to be cruel, despite of the fact that the Court below has observed that the respondent plaintiff had failed to prove a fact of cruelty. It 2 was also pleaded in the ground of appeal that the fact of illicit relationship of the appellant was also not proved by the husband and, more particularly, when the husband in the suit, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery has not impleaded the adulterer as a party, because under the rules framed by the High Court, when either of spouse comes forward with the case of illicit relationship or adultery, it is necessary for the plaintiff to make the adulterer as a party so that the allegation may be proved, after considering the version of the adulterer.
In the absence of the respondent, impleading the adulterer as a party, the decree of divorce could not have been granted to the husband on the ground of illicit relationship.
Another important aspect which has been taken as a ground by the wife, while challenging the decree of divorce is, that some of the allegations about the cruelty said to have been committed by appellant wife, has been raised by the husband in the plaint for the first time and no sanctity could be attached to the same because the allegation of adultery or illicit relationship, cannot be an incident which has chanced overnight. It must have been subsisting for a long time and, in such a circumstances, invariably in some of the communications, it ought to have figured at the behest of the husband or reflected somewhere, since this not being so, and the allegation which has come up in the plaint for the first time, much credence ought not to have been placed by the Family Court while dissolving the marriage by decree impugned. It is also case of appellant that Court below lost sight of the fact that in the cross examination as led by the respondent husband, he has admitted in it that he has not 3 filed any case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, meaning thereby, as a matter of fact, no effort has been made by him to revive the marriage and thus, the cruelty was rather at the behest of the husband.
Another reason which has been assigned by the Court while granting the decree of divorce was based upon the personal observations made by the Court, wherein, the Court observed that the appellant wife, since while appearing in the Court had not put on 'bindi' on the forehead and there is no 'mangalsutra' in her neck and thus, the inference drawn by the Court was that there has been a severment of relationship at the behest of the wife, since she had not followed traditions of Hindu wife by putting symbol of marriage.
The appellant wife, in her memorandum of appeal, has taken a specific ground that the learned Court below had erred in law while deciding the issue No. 1, based upon the opinion and inferences as it related to affinity of the wife with her previous classmate Surya Giri. The contention of the wife was that the findings, which has been recorded by the Family Court, while granting the decree of divorce from the view point that the said decree would be having an adverse effect on the proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C., is absolutely misconceived for the reason as per wife merely because a proceedings may be on either a civil or criminal side will have no impact on other parallel proceedings, its adjudication would be on its exclusive merit, cannot be avoided as each case has its own vitalities. On these grounds, primarily, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the impugned judgment dated 25th November, 2014, passed by the Family Court, dissolving the 4 marriage on the petition filed by the respondent husband under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b).
Facts as enumerated before the Court below by the husband plaintiff was that the marriage between the parties to the appeal was soleminised on 04.05.2002 at Mumbai, i.e. where they were residing at that particular point of time on 4th May, 2002, because the husband was stationed at Bombay because he was engaged in BARC. In the same place, where the husband was working, wife's childhood friend Surya Giri, was also working and gradually when the wife came to know that her classmate is working in the same office, she gradually started developing affinity to Surya Giri, who often now and then used to visit the home in the absence of the husband. Thus, a bona fide doubt was created in the minds of the husband when due to the said closeness, she refused to have physical relationship with the plaintiff respondent as alleged by husband and she suggested that in case, if he wants to satisfy his physical desire, he should call upon the prostitutes, instead of approaching her. As per the husband's case, it shows that she has lost her sensitivity towards the matrimonial relationship with the plaintiff respondent, as the relationship gradually turned placid amongst them unaffected by any emotional discord.
According to the husband, he tried to make her understand that under the Hindu Law, the matrimony has to be sustained and one has to settle himself in a bundle of compromise to sustain the family, but, as per husband, the same was not accepted by the wife and she pressed upon that under these circumstances, she cannot continue to live with the husband, hence he alleged commission of cruelty at the behest of wife.5
Based on the aforesaid averments raised by the husband, coupled with the fact that he pleaded before the Court below that there had been unbearable cruelty by conduct, yet, out of the marriage, a daughter was born on 4th March, 2004, named Garima, who, since being of 9 years was of a too tender stage was is in the custody of the wife. To get the custody of the daughter from wife, the husband initiated the proceedings under the Guardianships and Wards Act being Case No. 033 of 2011, Kharag Singh Mehra Vs. Hem Lata, which is pending consideration before the Court below. Husband's case was when she started harassment in league with her friend rather because of him, Surya Giri, the husband was forced upon to quit his job on 18th February, 2007. The husband also developed the case before the Court below of desertion, stating therein, that the wife has deserted the husband and her matrimonial home and has moved with her parents after taking her daughter Garima and all valuable, it was also submitted that at the time when she was leaving home of the husband, she had carried all her stridhan, ornaments and valuable and departed to Kashipur. Husband made an effort to bring back his wife by visiting her home on 29th April, 2007, but she refused to accompany the husband, meaning thereby, she declined to discharge her matrimonial obligations.
Hence, the husband contends that looking to the behavior of the wife, it gave necessity to file the proceedings under Section 13, when the wife consistently deserted her husband for the period of more than four years and hence in the absence of there being any cohabitation and the marriage since remained unconsummated for last more than 4 years, he was entitled for the decree of divorce.6
On issuance of the notice, the wife appeared before the Court and filed her written statement, paper No. 14-ka and she admitted two facts only one that the marriage between them was solemnized on 4th May, 2002, and, secondly, she accepted the fact with regard to the child being born, out of the wedlock. She admits the fact that when after the marriage, she accompanied the husband at Mumbai, after a period of 9 to 10 months of her marriage with the respondent husband, then she came to know that Surya Giri was residing in Bombay, who was a childhood friend of the wife. With regard to the allegation of illicit relationship of wife appellant, with her classmate Surya Giri, the wife has taken a specific stand in the written statement that she has got no relationship whatsoever with Surya Giri and since he had been a classmate, he is more or less like a brother to him and the apprehension of illicit relationship, as expressed by the husband, was without any basis and was concocted.
The wife's case was that the petition for dissolution of marriage, submitted by the husband, was with the malicious intention because he wanted to somehow camouflage his own misdeed when after 8-9 months of their marriage, the husband started raising a demand of dowry from the in- laws, asking them to give a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as dowry. According to the wife, the amount of Rs.10 lacs, as demanded by the husband, is considerably a heavy amount, which could not be honoured by the wife's family due to paucity of funds, which was not acceptable by the husband's family and, thus, they on 2nd November, 2011, had beaten her and she was thrown out of the house.
The case of the respondent in the written statement was that when on 13th May, 2007, she went to the husband's 7 home to collect the dress material of her daughter, who was residing with her w.e.f. 12th November, 2005, she was not permitted by the husband to enter into the house and threaten to kill her. The wife contends that when the things reached out of control, she was constrained to lodge a police complaint against the husband and the family members, under Section 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P. Act, which is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur.
As per the wife, the sole reason for all these disputes and misunderstandings is that the husband and his family member have developed a lust for dowry and when the same was not honoured, it was not welcomed by the family members of the husband and they alongwith husband started harassing the wife. The wife's case was further that she is an educated lady, having qualification of B.Sc. and B.Ed. and the whole conspiracy which has been developed by the husband was to somehow secure the decree of divorce so as to enable him to enter into a second marriage.
Based on the aforesaid grounds, a decree for dissolution of marriage was sought for.
In the Suit, in question, the wife has filed application under Section 24 for a grant of pendente lite maintenance which remained pending for a considerable long time.
The learned Trial Court, on exchange of pleadings, have framed the following issues :-
"1. D;k izfrokfnuh }kjk oknh eqdnek ds lkFk fookg ds mijkUr ls dqzjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k tkrk jgk gS \
2. D;k oknh eqdnek }kjk izfrokfnuh dks ngst dh uktk;t ekax ds fy, "kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld ;kruk,a nsrs gq, mls ?kj ls fudky fn;k gS\ 8
3. D;k izfrokfnuh }kjk nkok is"k djus dh frfFk ls iwoZ fujUrj djhc lk<s pkj o'kksZ ls vf/kd le; ls oknh eqdnek dk ifjR;kx fd;k gS vkSj mls nkEiR; thou ds lq[kksa ls oafpr j[kk gS \
4. oknh fdl vuqrks'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \"
The first issue related was as to as to whether defendant wife has committed a cruelty resulting into impeaching the matrimonial harmony, as to whether, under the pretext of dowry demand, she has been physically and mentally duressed by the family members of the husband and husband himself and lastly, an issue was framed as to whether the defendant appellant had deserted her husband for last more than 4-1/2 years.
The plaintiff in support of his evidence has appeared in the witness box and submitted his affidavit in examination- in-chief as paper No. 22-Ka and examined himself by recording his oral testimony as PW1. Besides this, another witness, Laxman Singh Mehra, who filed his affidavit as paper No. 26-ka, was a prosecution witness as PW2.
Besides the oral witnesses, the husband has also produced documentary evidence viz. paper No. 27-Ga, paper No. 28-Ga and so forth.
The wife, who was contesting the proceedings, too, had submitted her affidavit in examination-in-chief, which was numbered as paper No. 44-Ka and recorded the statement by way of an affidavit paper No. 45-Ka of DW2.
The learned Trial Court, while deciding issue No. 1 pertaining to the cruelty, held that looking to the charges as levelled by the appellant against the husband, could be summarized to the following effects :-
"(i) izfrokfnuh ds lw;kZfxjh uked O;fDr tks mldk iwoZ ls lgikBh Fkk ds lkFk uktk;t laca/k FksA 9
(ii) oknh eqdnek }kjk izfrokfnuh dks jksdus ij izfrokfnuh mls >wBs eqdnesa esa Qalkus dh ?kedh nsrh FkhA
(iii) izfrokfnuh oknh eqdnek ls "kkjhfjd laca/k cukus ls bUdkj djrh Fkh rFkk mls oS";kvksa ds ikl tkus dh lykg nsrh FkhA
(iv) izfrokfnuh ds lw;kZfxjh ls uktk;t laca/kksa ds pyrs oknh eqdnek dks eqEcbZ ls viuh ukSdjh NksMus ds fy, ck?; gksuk iMkA
(v) izfrokfnuh ds ek;ds pys tkus ij oknh eqdnek ds cqykus ds fy, tkus ij pIiyksa ls mlds lkFk ekjihV dh tkrh Fkh o mldk f=Ldkj fd;k tkrk FkkA
(vi) izfrokfnuh }kjk i{kdkjksa ds lalxZ ls mRiUUk iq+=h dks oknh eqdnek dh iq=h ekuus ls bUdkj fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk izfrokfnuh oknh eqdnek dks jsy ds uhps dVdj vkRegR;k djus ds fy, mdlkrh FkhA"
The husband's case, while responding to the aforesaid allegation / charges, had submitted his own affidavit, paper No. 22-Ka, and reiterated the statements made in his pleadings because that was the only situation by which a cruelty in a matrimonial case could be proved only by way of evidence because there cannot a direct evidence for the same.
The Court below, while considering the stand taken by the appellant pertaining to the allegation of illicit relationship with a fellow classmate Surya Giri, considered the fact that it has been consistent stand of the appellant that Surya Giri, is like a brother of the appellant. She further, in her statement, in affidavit paper No. 44-Ka stated that after a considerable long time, she met Surya Giri , when they were living in Mumbai. Merely levelling the bald allegations about the illicit relationship of a wife could not be accepted, as to constitute a basis for dissolving the marriage because the husband was supposed to prove the fact of illicit relationship and, according to the evidence on record, no effort has been made by the husband to show that wife had 10 any entanglement with Surya Giri. But the inference drawn by the husband that Surya Giri used to visit home, may not be justified reason to attract Section 13, because in this modern era, meeting with the friends of opposite sex and that too particularly in the Metropolitan cities, like Mumbai, is quite common and no adverse inference could be drawn until and unless the person claiming a benefit out of it, proves it beyond doubt, which the husband has failed to establish.
The allegations levelled by the husband against the wife that she intended to entrap the husband and his family members in false criminal cases, very candidly replied by the wife when she has admitted that though she had filed the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498-A read with Section ¾ of the D.P. Act, merely, to protect her rights as wife which has been granted under the statute, she had instituted the proceedings for redressal of her grievance, cannot be termed as to be a cruelty until and unless a contrary is proved by the Court of law.
It is an admitted case that the Court has held that the wife was not entitled for any maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. but simultaneously, also held that so far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and Section 406 of the IPC are concerned, if they are not being established on the basis of pleading and evidence, adverse inference has to be drawn against wife, and would be treated to be cruelty.
The view taken by the Court below, on the basis of the statement made by the wife, during the course of the proceedings that since 2007, based upon the fact that since 11 2007, she has declined to accept the respondent as her husband, the Court has further extended the argument of the wife, by drawing its own inference from the impact of not putting on 'bindi' and 'mangalshutra'.
Based on the aforesaid observations, the findings recorded by the Court that the wife was not accepting the husband as her life partner is not appropriate and plausible reason requiring to dissolve the marriage which under the Hindu marriage system has got its own piousness. A very cursory statement and reason has been assigned by the Court that if the factum of cruelty is proved by the party claiming dissolution of marriage, based on cruelty beyond reasonable doubt, the decree for dissolution of marriage ought to be granted.
In the case, at hand, it is not the case pleaded by the husband seeking a decree of divorce based on the ground which constitutes the reasons in the judgment because, the Court has awarded the decree of divorce on its own analogy and experience and based what he personally felt at the time when the proceedings were going on before the Court. The personal experiences of the Court with regard to attitude of either of the spouses, while participating the proceedings, cannot be inferred and to be interpreted as to amount to a cruelty. Thus, the reason assigned by the Court that since the appellant is not putting on 'bindi' and 'mangalshutra' since 2007, she admits the cessation of relationship of husband and wife, is absolutely erroneous and without any basis.
Another reason which has been assigned by the Family Court for decreeing the suit of the husband for dissolution of marriage is the threat extended by the wife to entrap him in false criminal cases. Such type of an assertion, as experienced, is quite common and it often occurs when there happens to be the slightest misunderstanding between the 12 husband and the wife, but then all the most, it was to prove. If there was a treat perception, then husband ought to have protect himself by resorting to the process contemplated under law by lodging appropriate proceedings.
To prove that there was an intention to entrap or rope the husband in false case, it was the husband who was required to prove the actions taken by the wife to achieve that object. This duty was not discharged by the husband, but, if this is simultaneously read with the pending cases under the Domestic Violence Act, proceedings under Section 498-A and Section 125 Cr.P.C., merely its filing by the person who seeks a redressal of a grievance under the statutory remedy which is available to a party. Its filing will not amount to cruelty. Having recourse to a judicial remedy is a constitutional right and on its availment, it cannot be nomenclature as cruelty.
The second issue which has been dealt by the Court pertained to the demand of dowry. Demand of dowry was a reason which was developed at the behest of the pleadings raised by the defendant wife. There cannot be any direct evidence, there are always bleak chances to prove the allegation, in a matrimonial relationship where husband could be said to have raised a demand of dowry from the wife or her family members. Such type of demand is always dependent upon an interpretation of each and every individual case separately.
The Court, while considering the import of Section 2 of the D.P. Act, 1961, as to what would constitute to be a dowry and while considering its literal meaning that it would constitute to be a valuable goods or property given at the time of marriage has inferred that since the marriage was 13 solemnized between them on 4th May, 2002, and since they have being living separately since 2007, and in accordance with Section 2 of the definition of dowry under the Act, any demand which is said to have been made, cannot be termed as to be a demand of dowry. The Court held that according to Paper No. 49-Ka, which was the list of documents pertaining to criminal cases, Case No. 11 of 2012, under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and the decision of acquittal by judgment dated 14th March, 2014, shows that in either of the proceedings were not based upon the fact that there was a demand of dowry by the family of the husband, thus this contention was not established.
May it be so. Even let us presume that there was no demand of dowry and in criminal case filed by the wife but the allegations as pleaded do support the contention of the wife that the misunderstanding was because of lack of specifying the demand, in terms,made by the husband. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the Family Court, while deciding issue No. 2, based on the pending criminal proceedings, is not a just method of concluding the issue pertaining to the demand of dowry as to be the basis for seeking the dissolution of marriage.
On issue No. 3, pertaining to desertion, it was the plaintiff's case that when on 28th February, he had gone to Delhi for getting the treatment of his father, during this period, his wife alongwith his daughter Garima, with all stridhan, had left the matrimonial home and had gone to Kashipur and, thereafter, despite of every effort being made, she had not joined the matrimonial home. This in itself is sufficient ground for granting decree of divorce. It was the 14 case of the husband that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home and there was no relationship of husband and wife.
To support the theory of desertion, for deciding issue No. 3, he placed reliance on the affidavit, paper No. 22-Ka, wherein, an assertion has come forward from respondent wife that there was no physical relationship. The factum of living separately from the house, according to the Court below, was established by the statement made in the cross examination, where the wife admits to be living separately from his husband w.e.f. 1st March, 2007. This would amount to be admission and furthermore, she also admits that since 2007, she has not put on 'bindi' and 'mangalshutra', as she does not teat that any more marriage survives between them.
It is admitted case between the parties that the suit was filed on 31st October, 2011, and it was further admitted by the wife that she is living separately since 1st March, 2007, and no relationship was established between them for last more than 4-1/2 years. It was further observed that ever since the dispute has arisen between them, all efforts which has been made by Mahila Helpline and High Court itself by holding mediation, but they have failed, as it has been observed in the decision of the Criminal Case No. 195 of 2008, dated 30th April, 2010, that all efforts for settlement of dispute between the husband and wife have failed due to the adamant attitude of the appellant.
This Court also considered the statement recorded by the wife in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, where she has submitted that even if at that point of time, husband makes an effort to take her back, she will not accompany her husband. Thus, the Court rightly held that it was the attitude of the wife and not the attitude 15 of the husband which has contributed the acrimony between them an life became irretrievable. The adamancy of not acceding to live gracefully and to discharge the responsibility of a wife, it shows that it was rather wife who was not willing to discharge her matrimonial obligation, and thus, the case would be falling to be within the ambit of willful desertion. Hence Section 13 (1) (i-b) would be attracted and the marriage between them would be deserved to be dissolved as husband has been deprived of the solace of marriage. Thus, looking to the circumstances as enumerated as under :-
1. Wife has voluntarily deserted the husband w.e.f. 1st March, 2007, is sufficient for granting the decree of divorce.
2. The Act of desertion and having no physical relationship since 2007, is yet an admitted fact, is another valid ground for dissolving the marriage.
3. In other co-lateral proceedings, there is specific statement made by the wife that no amount of persuasion would persuade her to join the matrimony, shows the adamancy, that there is no possibility of conciliation, hence, it would not be conducive to continue maintain the fractured relationship.
4. It is an admitted case and also apparent from the findings recoded by the Court that the husband and wife are Hindu and she ever since 2007, has not putting on 'bindi', 'sindur' and 'mangalshutra', which are honourous symbol of the matrimonial relationship, depict the affinity and closeness of wife towards her husband, which shows that she 16 herself has voluntarily discarded relationship of husband and wife.
5. All efforts made by the Mahila Helpline, Family Court and High Court for conciliation has failed, though, not proved but the fact which no husband would accept that the wife regularly for no good and valid reason meets other male person regularly.
6. Since the husband and the family members all have been acquitted in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, by the judgment dated 14th March, 2014, it would amount that the allegations levelled by the wife are false and frivolous and this, in itself, would constitute to be a cruelty, as per the dictum of Apex Court.
Owing to the above, it goes without doubt that the wife is not willing to discharge her matrimonial obligations and there has been desertion at her behest since 2007, it cannot be ruled out that filing of the appeal is nothing but a deliberate effort to harass the husband further by keeping him engage in litigation without the dispute being resolved.
In that view of the matter, the appeal fails and the judgment and decree, as passed by the Court below dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, is upheld.
No order as to costs.
\ (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) (Rajiv Sharma, J.) 14.09.2017 14.09.2017 Shiv