Uttarakhand High Court
Smt Lajwanti vs Geetam Singh on 14 September, 2017
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sharad Kumar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
First Appeal No. 113 of 2014
Smt. Lajwanti ......Appellant
Versus
Sri Geetam Singh ...... Respondent.
With
Appeal Against Order No. 555 of 2014
Smt. Lajwanti and another ......Appellants
Versus
Sri Geetam Singh ...... Respondent.
Present:
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. L.K. Tiwari, 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.
These are two appeals, both preferred by the wife. The First Appeal No. 113 of 2014 is a regular appeal under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, where she challenges the decree of divorce granted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the husband, whereas, in the other connected A.O. No. 555 of 2014, the wife challenges the judgment dated 13th October, 2014, by virtue of which, an order has been passed on her application, paper No. 70-A, 2 filed by the defendant appellant, for seeking a permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which she has filed in the main Suit under Section 13, being Original Suit No. 325 of 2007, by husband for dissolving the marriage. Her application for grant of alimony under Section 25 has been rejected.
Since both the cases are covered by a common judgment passed by the Trial Court, based almost on same facts and between the same parties, the Appellate Court, too, with the consent of counsel, is proceeding to decide the appeals by a common judgment.
Before venturing into the propriety of the judgment and its intricacies, this Court feels that when in a proceedings under Section 13, initiated by the husband, wife comes forward and filed an application under Section 25 for granting of a permanent alimony. It tacitly implies that she accepts the propriety and necessity for dissolving the marriage because both proceedings cannot be carried simultaneously. If the marriage to be saved, then the wife ought not to claim an alimony under Section 25 and if it just contrary, if wife claims Section 25, she ought not to oppose the decree of divorce.
Posed with this question, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that destiny of the Appeal from Order would be dependent upon destiny of the First Appeal, arising out of the Original Suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Brief facts, on which, the parties are in loggerheads with one another, the prime issue and which is one of the factors contemplated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, permitting the dissolution of the marriage, i.e. 3 an adulterous relationship during the subsistence of the marriage. The other aspect which has been dealt under Section 13 for dissolving the marriage, is cruelty, desertion etc. which are all independent to one another and we are of the considered view that when a party to a marriage, seeks a dissolution, it has to bring it within the framework of either of the conditions for dissolving the marriage or for each of the conditions provided under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as each conditions for dissolution of marriage has altogether a separate set of evidence and separate aptitude of its interpretation, its gravity of analytical study changes, meaning thereby, all the grounds contemplated under Section 13, cannot be decided on the basis of an appreciation of a common evidence and on the basis of a common pleading as each.
This Court would be addressing on the aforesaid issues at a later stage of the judgment.
The facts of the case are that the respondent husband, who is plaintiff in Suit No. 325 of 2007, had sought the dissolution of marriage, which was soleminised between them on 15th February, 2002, at Langha, Police Station Sahaspur, District Dehradun, on the ground of cruelty. The ground as attributed by the husband in the pleadings was that she used to duress upon the husband to leave his home at Dehradun and often pressed upon him to come to Kalagarh and to live with the in-laws as Ghar Jawai. On a refusal being made by the husband to stay at Kalagarh, the husband case was that he was threatened by the appellant and his sister and other relatives of dire consequences. Husband submitted that the atrocities of the wife has reached to such an extent that she had stooped so low and 4 that they alongwith two or three persons visited the home of the appellant on 2nd April, 2006, and they had criminally assaulted him and his mother. The respondent had immediately is said to have lodged a complaint before the S.D.M. informing him about the incident of 2nd April, 2006, and simultaneously, he has also lodged a complaint before the Incharge Mahila Cell, S.S.P. and D.I.G. This attributed to cruelty, where there was uncalled harassment and uncalled physical assault.
It was the case of the husband also that on 26th August, 2005, at about 9:00 a.m., the wife after collecting all her valuable and stridhan, had left the matrimonial home and since then, she is residing at Dehradun. It shows that there was one of other element of dissolution of marriage as provided under Section 13, i.e. desertion.
As per the pleadings between the parties, the husband has come out with the case that the appellant wife is a lady with a doubtful character and there is doubt about her chastity, because the husband submitted that he has come to know that she is having an illicit physical relationship with one Mr. Mangat Sharma, resident of Bhagwanpur, Dehradun and he submitted that they have physical relationship. It was further submitted that the aforesaid fact is also established from the facts that the wife of Mangat Sharma, i.e. Smt. Rani, has also lodged a complaint before the S.S.P., Dehradun, making a complaint with regard to the illicit relationship of Mangat Sharma with the appellant. This pleading draws the proceedings of the appeal to another ground for dissolution of marriage contemplated under Section 13 of the Act, i.e. adultery.
5The husband's contention on overall scrutiny of the allegation was that looking to the circumstances and the gravity of relationship which they were having the matrimony between them has utterly collapsed and there was no chance of its revival and thus he prayed for that living with wife as husband has become irretrievable because there is apparent apprehension of life, security and of peace, and hence, he sought a decree for dissolution of marriage.
In response to it, the wife filed her written statement, paper No. 30-A, wherein, only admitting the part of the pleading pertaining to marriage. She denied rest of the allegations pertaining to the incident of 2nd April, 2006, pertaining to the duress exercised by her asking the husband to live at Kalagarh, she denied that she used to quarrel and create disturbance in the family or had ever threatened the husband in any manner whatsoever.
With regard to the complaint, she submitted that the complaint submitted by the husband before the various authorities were not having any truth and hence, he was made to understand to enter into a settlement so that the dispute may be resolved. She submitted that after entering into the said understanding, as against the lodging of complaint by the wife to the various authorities, to the effect not to percolate the same, she submitted that the husband started lodging frivolous complaints against the wife after the said understanding. She denied the factum of having deserted the husband on 26th August, 2005.
She vaguely denied the relationship between Mangat Sharma and her. She submitted in clarification in defence to justify her relationship that Mangat Sharma, happens to be a 6 distant relative, though, she admitted the fact that she knows Mangat Sharma quite closely. It was due to this affinity of family that often both the families visited one another's place, though, she denied that Mrs. Rani W/o Mangat Sharma has lodged a complaint before the S.S.P. but it was not proved.
She submitted that the manner, in which, the husband is taking the proceedings by placing false documents on record and, even so much so, some of the photographs, which he has placed reliance, showing an intimate posture between Mangat Sharma and the appellant, they are all false, as those photographs were taken when they had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of their niece.
Despite of the aforesaid circumstances and the gravity of the misunderstanding in the relationship, a daughter, Km. Tanu was born on 30th September, 2004. She submitted that when on learning about the birth of daughter, the family members of the wife visited the husband's place but they were misbehaved by the husband's family members and they were not permitted to enter the house.
On the basis of the aforesaid backdrop, she admits the fact that she has lodged a complaint before the Police Help Lines against the husband and his family members and, based on the aforesaid complaint, the Mahila Helpline tried to make settlement between the parties and they were called at the Headquarter and, according to the appellant wife, a compromise was entered into on 5th August, 2005. According to the wife, she, thereafter, started residing with the daughter at the husband's place. She submitted that despite of it, the circumstances prevailing between them did not subside and the misunderstanding and acrimony 7 between them continued, rather in an aggravated form and it was creating difficulty in continuing together in life. She submitted that when she was physically assaulted by the family members of the husband, she suffered injuries and she was hospitalized for three days in Doon Hospital and a complaint was lodged. On the compliant, it is the admitted case, a Panchayat was held on 15th June, 2006, but a final settlement could not be arrived at as none of the parties were agreeing to settle to the terms of compromise dated 15th June, 2006.
While the proceedings were pending, the wife filed an application under Section 25, claiming the permanent alimony of Rs. 25 lacs. The said application, under Section 25, was opposed by the husband. He submitted that since looking to the conduct of the wife and the availability of property with her, she was not entitled for any alimony under Section 25, more particularly, when she herself has failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations. He submitted that since the circumstances prevailing between them is of such a gravity, where a dissolution has to follow automatically, she was not entitled for any maintenance.
On the exchange of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues :-
"1. D;k foi{kh }kjk ;kph ds lkFk] tSlk fd ;kfpdk ds fofHkUUk pj.kksa esa vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS] dwzjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k x;kA
2. D;k ;kph ekaxk x;k vuqrks'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA"
The husband, in support of his evidence, produced himself as PW1, Pratap Singh as PW2 and Panniram as PW3. Respondent wife has also produced herself as DW1. There were various documentary evidences also filed by the husband showing various proceedings drawn inter se 8 between the parties which showed that there was no possibility of revival of the relationship as, none of them, had ever expressed their desire to pacify the controversy and to discharge their matrimonial obligations.
The learned Trial Court, while dealing with issue No. 1, had almost clubbed together all the grounds of dissolution under Section 13 and had decided the same, holding thereof, that the plaintiff has been able to establish that there had chanced cruelty. The Court held that looking to the evidence which has been adduced by the parties, both oral and documentary, has recorded a finding, while considering the impact of Case No. 122 of 2007, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, the appellant has submitted that she knows Rani W/O of Mangat Sharma. She admits that she used to meet Mangat Sharma but had not met him for a considerable long time. She admits the letter of Rani, paper No. 9C, wherein, she has asserted that Rani's husband Mangat Sharma is having illicit relationship with her husband and it is due to this reason, Mangat Sharma had at times misbehaved and even beaten the complainant Rani. In a letter, she submitted that it is due to this relationship of appellant with Mangat Sharma had created such a condition, where the differences between Rani and Mangat Sharma, had increased and he may succeed in getting married or continue with his relationship with the appellant. She submitted that it was not she who had left the home of the respondent but rather it is the respondent who has thrown her out of her matrimonial home. But surprisingly, she admits that after being thrown out of the home of the husband "she has taken all her ornaments with her". While denying the photograph, paper Nos. 10-A and 11-C, the wife 9 has submitted that these photographs were of hers but they were clicked in a wrong manner. She admits that one of the photographs do show that she is in close proximity of Mangat Sharma.
Once she admits the photograph, she admits the closeness, the letter of Rani and the statement recorded under Section 125 Cr.P.C proceedings, show that it cannot be ruled out that she was not having in relation with Mangat Sharma. It is furthermore relevant because the sanctity to the allegations is attached to the complaint of Rani wife of Mangat Ram because otherwise there was no motive as to why Rani would lodge a complaint against her husband. Similarly, no husband would, too, ever draw the proceedings before the Court of law by raising an allegation of illicit relationship with other male against his wife, because, such an allegation would also simultaneously tarnish his personal image and the image of his family. Leveling of an allegation of illicit relationship by husband against his wife has a wide bearing because it becomes a moral turpitude where after the happening of the said incident, it would not be possible for the husband and wife to live together.
It has also come on record that the appellant used to move around with Mangat Sharma on his motorcycle as alleged by his wife in the compliant to the S.S.P. and the photograph in support thereof which is too humiliating for a husband and it has resulted into the deteriorating of the mental condition of the husband, apart from the maligning his image.
This issue is further supported from the fact that the appellant has lodged a Case under Section 498-A I.P.C.
10against the husband which was investigated upon and later on it was found that the allegation under Section 498-A I.P.C. was not proved and a final report has been submitted in favour of the husband. This fact stands admitted by her statement recorded before the Court below. Hence, no fault could be found in the findings recorded by the Family Court, while deciding issue No. 1.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita reported in (2014) 16 SCC 34, has held in its para 6 that filing of a false criminal complaint, which was filed by the wife, after filing of the divorce petition and subsequently when the allegation raised in the criminal proceedings are not established, this itself, will amount to be cruelty, entitling a dissolution of marriage. Para 5 of the judgment is quoted hereunder :-
"5 The Respondent-Wife has admitted in her cross- examination that she did not mention all the incidents on which her Complaint is predicated, in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not her case that she had actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the High Court that the criminal complaint was "ill advised". Adding thereto is the factor that the High Court had been informed of the acquittal of the Appellant-Husband and members of his family. In these circumstances, the High Court ought to have concluded that the Respondent-Wife knowingly and intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the Appellant and seven members of his family and that such conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act."
This Court feels that while deciding issue No. 2, when the Court was granting a decree of divorce to the respondent and once it is being admitted between the parties that they were married, the Court was liable to consider all the aspects 11 and also to consider the intentions of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court ought to have granted a reasonable alimony so that she may support herself in life.
Though there are certain restrictions in awarding the alimony under Section 25 of the Act, including the restrictions of the conduct of the party, but, looking to the wider interest and to secure the life, this Court feels that alimony of Rs.10 lacs would be sufficient for maintaining herself in life.
In view of what has been observed above, the First Appeal No. 113 of 2014, is dismissed and the decree of divorce as granted by the Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13th October, 2014, as passed in Suit No. 325 of 2007, Geetam Singh Vs. Smt. Lajwanti, is confirmed.
As far as the Appeal from Order No. 555 of 2014, arising out of the decision rendered on 13th October, 2014, pertaining to the application under Section 25, declining to grant permanent alimony, the appeal is partly succeeds and alimony is granted to the tune of Rs.10 lacs.
The respondent is directed to remit the amount of permanent alimony within two months from the date of judgment, failing which, it would be open for the appellant to get the decree of alimony executed.
Thus the First Appeal No. 113 of 2014 is dismissed and Appeal from Order No. 555 of 2014, is partly allowed.
No order as to costs.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) (Rajiv Sharma, J.) 14.09.2017 14.09.2017 Shiv