Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(C) Their matrimonial life went on well after the marriage for another 10-11 years. However, due to appellant‟s misbehavior, ill-treatment, ego problems, cruel acts, etc., with time the matrimonial life of the parties greatly deteriorated.

(D) The appellant on the smallest pretext would pick up a fight with the respondent and would humiliate, insult and abuse the respondent in front of the children and also in front of the relatives of the respondent. The appellant even refused to do the normal household chores. On smallest pretext, the appellant would pack up respondent‟s clothes and ask him to leave as the residence was on her name since sometimes the residence was allotted to the appellant. The respondent in order to make the marriage survive and especially to keep the atmosphere conducive for the upbringing of the children, kept on bearing the mental torture, cruelty, humiliation and the insult. The respondent would normally do the household chores and the appellant would not even help the respondent. The appellant though earning well, has not been contributing towards domestic expenditure for the last 4-5 years and the entire household expense is being borne by the respondent so as to humiliate and harass the respondent as she has deliberately taken the expenditure beyond affordable limits of the respondent. The stage came when the appellant in order to show her domination and pride used to humiliate and insult respondent on every possible occasion and pick up fight almost every day. Whenever, respondent‟s father or brother or relatives came to visit the respondent, the appellant would ill-treat them and fight with the respondent as to why they were there and they should leave immediately. When the niece of the respondent, namely Urmila, got married on 2.5.1995, the respondent invited the couple to his residence on 4.5.1995, the appellant not only objected but rather ridiculed the respondent. (E) One of the brothers of the respondent, namely, Sh.I.S.Mehra, an IPS Officer (U.P.Cadre), expired on 29.10.1993. The appellant objected to the dead body being brought from Lucknow to 31, Ashok Road, New Delhi (Official residence of the respondent/appellant at that point of time). Even the wife of Sh.I.S.Mehra, who was also an IPS Officer (U.P.Cadre) expired on 12.10.1997. Therefore, their children, namely, Vertika and Vivek, came to stay with the respondent being their uncle and the natural guardian and especially due to the fact that they would find the same atmosphere in which they were staying. Though, Vivek was studying in Ghaziabad and staying in the College Hostel over there but he used to visit the respondent on week-ends but Vertika was studying in College in Delhi and staying with the respondent. The appellant instead of having a humanitarian approach in taking care of the two orphans who were undergoing a bad phase, used to openly say that they were orphans and actually she does not want them to come or stay in the house. The appellant even ill-treated and misbehaved with both the children and also humiliated and insulted them even in front of their friends. The appellant would not allow Vertika to celebrate her birthday or call her friends at home or go out with her friends. In fact, in order to harass and humiliate the respondent on 27.02.1998, when the respondent was going to Ghosi (UP) on Election Duty, the appellant started creating problems and stated that after the respondent had gone she would throw Vertika out of the house. The respondent requested her not to do so and wait till he returned from his duty after a few days. But she told that in any case if the respondent did not make alternative arrangements for the stay of his niece Vertika, she would throw her out of the house. In sheer desperation and with a sense of help-lessness, the respondent requested one of his nephews namely, Ajay Mehra to take Vertika away to avoid and untoward incident. Even the respondent‟s nephew Vivek stopped visiting the respondent. This whole episode has greatly tortured the respondent mentally. The respondent has been humiliated, insulted and harassed by this act of the appellant. (F) The respondent did not stop her acts of cruelty there. Thereafter, in June, 1998 when respondent‟s father came to visit the respondent, the appellant used to shout at the respondent and his father as to why his father was there. Instead of taking care of the old man, she never used to allow him to come in her sight and insult him and the respondent in case he came down from his room. One day when the respondent‟s father came down from his room to go to the toilet, the appellant insulted him and told the respondent and his father that, the old man was intruding into her privacy and he should stay in his room and not to come out from the room whenever she is in the house. Thereafter, the respondent‟s father left the house and since June 1998 has been staying with the younger brother of the respondent namely, Sh.P.S. Mehra. This greatly affected the psyche of the respondent who felt insulted and humiliated that he cannot even take care of his aged father. Even earlier on many occasions, the father of the respondent had to be sent away on her insistences as she would say that she could not stand him (the respondent‟s father). It was the sad plight of the son (the respondent) who had to bear all these insults and humiliation in silence just to ensure that there was peace at home.

17. It is denied by the appellant that after10-11 years of marriage, the matrimonial life of respondent greatly deteriorated due to her misbehavior, ill-treatment, ego problem, cruel acts etc. The behaviour of appellant has always been cordial, adjustable and with love and affection and there has never been any ill-treatment or any ego problem as alleged. The appellant never committed any act of cruelty. Therefore, there is no question of matrimonial life of the parties to have greatly deteriorated as alleged by the respondent.

18. The appellant is devoted as a wife, is conscious of her duties, considers herself open to criticism and correction and wants to work on problems rather than make them a cause to snap ties. In fact there has never been anything wrong with the marriage and the marriage has gone through the normal wear and tear over the period of time.

19. The intention of respondent is not bonafide as he wanted to oust the appellant from the matrimonial home for which purpose he filed suit for permanent injunction against the appellant, which is pending in the court of Civil Judge.

58. In Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under;

"...whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the Respondent".

59. In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121, the Apex Court has observed as under;

"Section 13(1)(ia) uses the word "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the Court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted."