A division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Shri Justice Sheel Nagu & Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant/wife praying the court to set aside the decree of her divorce which was sought by the husband on the ground of cruelty. The court held that cruelty must be understood in subjective circumstances and it is always dependent upon social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperament, and emotions that are conditioned by their social status.
Brief Facts:
The appellant and the respondent married on 31.01.2009. Two years later, they were blessed with a son. However, the wife alleged cruelty on husband’s part and she along with her minor son left his house and came to her father's place. The matrimonial litigations then flared up between both of them and the husband filed a petition seeking divorce at Jaipur; which was subsequently transferred to Bhopal by the Supreme Court. The appellant/wife also filed a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondent/husband, and his family members, but the police did not take any action on it. Aggrieved by this, she filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal under Section 200 of the CrPC.
Meanwhile, the respondent filed a petition for declaring him guardian of their son and seeking his custody. After hearing of this petition, the respondent got agitated and started abusing her. He along with his two associates assaulted her and caused severe injuries. The appellant immediately filed an FIR No.143/2015 under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC complaining about the aforesaid incident and the injury caused to her. The respondent also lodged a cross FIR bearing number 144/2015 against the appellant under Section 363 of the IPC alleging that she had kidnapped her son. The appellant preferred a petition against this FIR before the High Court; which was allowed holding that the appellant is a natural guardian and mother of the child, therefore, the charge of kidnapping cannot be framed against her. On challenge by the respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court vide order dated 03.12.2018.
The divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The learned Family Court found both the grounds proved but held that the statutory period of 2 years of desertion is not completed by the time of filing of the petition by the husband and, therefore, the decree cannot be granted on that ground of desertion, allowed the petition on the ground of ‘cruelty’ and dissolved their marriage by a decree of divorce. This decree is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Observations of the Appellant:
The appellant prayed for setting aside the decree of divorce because while passing it, the Court only considered the aspects and contentions of the respondent. Despite contradictions, the trial Court wrongly believed the evidence produced by the respondent-husband. The Court misjudged the conduct of the respondent. It completely ignored that he was denied a divorce by the ‘Panchas’ of the society and that it was only the actions of the respondent which led to the separation of the parties. It further ignored the fact of the pendency of her petition under Section 498A of the IPC.
Observations of the Court:
The court relied on the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat reported (1994) 1 SCC 337, wherein the Supreme Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The court further opined that cruelty is subjective and it must be judged as per the circumstances. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.
Further reliance was placed on Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 wherein the court held that the expression ‘cruelty’ has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behavior. It is always dependent upon social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperament, and emotions that are conditioned by their social status.
On appreciation of this entire evidence, categorically touching every aspect, the court concluded that the Family Court arrived at the correct conclusion that the statements of the husband and his witnesses were reliable. The arguments of the appellant were rejected as she could not produce any evidence supporting her allegations.
The court carefully went through the depositions of all the witnesses examined by both parties. Keeping in view the principles of the preponderance of probability, on the scrutiny of this entire evidence, the court formed a consensus with the conclusions arrived at by the Family Court and found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The decision of the Court:
As a result, the appeal, sans substratum, was dismissed.
Case Title: Smt. Santosh Meena vs Siddharth B.S. Meena
Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sheel Nagu & Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh
Case No.: FIRST APPEAL No. 1797 of 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms Ruchika Gohil
Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Rahul Diwakar
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments