separated from his family. The evidence shows that the
family was virtually maintained from the income of the
Appellant husband. It is not a common practice or desirable
culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the
parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife,
especially when the son is the only earning member in the
family. A son, brought up and given education by his
parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and
maintain the parents, when they become old and when they
have either no income or have a meagre income. In India,
generally people do not subscribe to the western thought,
where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son
gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a
wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after
the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the
family of the husband and normally without any justifiable
strong reason, she would never insist that her husband
should get separated from the family and live only with her.
In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the
trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary
considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her
husband separated from his family. The averment of the
Respondent was to the effect that the income of the
Appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The
said grievance of the Respondent is absolutely unjustified.
A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in
Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for
which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated
from the family - the sole reason was to enjoy the income of
the Appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered
this to be a justifiable reason. In the opinion of the High
Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the
income of her husband is used for her and not for the
family members of the Respondent husband. We do not see
any reason to justify the said view of the High Court. As
stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious
obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife
makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and
normal custom of the society, she must have some
justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find
any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the
Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband
would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated
from his old parents and other family members, who are
also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of
the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be
separated from the family would be torturous for the
husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when
it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of
‘cruelty’.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2008
NARENDRA
V
K. MEENA
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
Dated:OCTOBER 06, 2016.
Citation:(2016) 9 SCC455
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant husband,
whose decree for divorce passed by the trial Court has been
set aside by the impugned judgment dated 8th March, 2006
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.171 of 2002 (FC).
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a
nutshell, are as under :
The Respondent wife filed Miscellaneous First Appeal
under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the High Court
as she was aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17th
November, 2001, passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bangalore in M.C. No.603 of 1995 under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Act filed by the Appellant husband seeking
divorce.
3. The Appellant husband had married the Respondent
wife on 26th February, 1992. Out of the wedlock, a female
child named Ranjitha was born on 13th November, 1993.
The case of the Appellant was that the Respondent did not
live happily with the Appellant even for a month after the
marriage. The reason for filing the divorce petition was that
the Respondent wife had become cruel because of her
highly suspicious nature and she used to level absolutely
frivolous but serious allegations against him regarding his
character and more particularly about his extra-marital
relationship. Behaviour of the Respondent wife made life of
the Appellant husband miserable and it became impossible
for the Appellant to stay with the Respondent for the
aforestated reasons. Moreover, the Respondent wanted the
Appellant to leave his parents and other family members
and to get separated from them so that the Respondent can
live independently; and in that event it would become more
torturous for the Appellant to stay only with the Respondent
wife with her such nature and behaviour. The main ground
was cruelty, as serious allegations were levelled about the
moral character of the Appellant to the effect that he was
having an extra-marital affair with a maid, named Kamla.
Another important allegation was that the Respondent
would very often threaten the Appellant that she would
commit suicide. In fact, on 2th July, 1995, she picked up a
quarrel with the Appellant, went to the bathroom, locked
the door from inside and poured kerosene on her body and
attempted to commit suicide. On getting smell of kerosene
coming from the bathroom, the Appellant, his elder brother
and some of the neighbours broke open the door of the
bathroom and prevented the Respondent wife from
committing suicide. The aforestated facts were found to be
sufficient by the learned Family Court for granting the
Appellant a decree of divorce dated 17th November, 2001,
after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce
dated 17th November, 2001, the Respondent wife had filed
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.171 of 2002 (FC), which has
been allowed by the High Court on 8th March, 2006,
whereby the decree of divorce dated 17th November, 2001
has been set aside. Being aggrieved by the judgment and
order passed by the High Court, the Appellant has filed this
appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent was
not present when the appeal was called out for hearing.
The matter was kept back but for the whole day, the learned
counsel for the Respondent did not appear. Even on an
earlier occasion on 31st March, 2016, when the appeal was
called out, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent wife was not present and therefore, the Court
had heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
submitted that the High Court had committed a grave error
in the process of re-appreciating the evidence and by setting
aside the decree of divorce granted in favour of the
Appellant. He submitted that there was no reason to
believe that there was no cruelty on the part of the
Respondent wife. He highlighted the observations made by
the Family Court and took us through the evidence, which
was recorded before the Family Court. He drew our
attention to the depositions made by independent
witnesses, neighbours of the Appellant, who had rescued
the Respondent wife from committing suicide by breaking
open the door of the bathroom when the Respondent was on
the verge of committing suicide by pouring kerosene on
herself and by lighting a match stick. Our attention was
also drawn to the fact that serious allegations levelled
against the character of the Appellant in relation to an
extra-marital affair with a maid were absolutely baseless as
no maid named Kamla had ever worked in the house of the
Appellant. It was also stated that the Respondent wife was
insisting the Appellant to get separated from his family
members and on 12th July, 1995 i.e. the date of the attempt
to commit suicide, the Respondent wife deserted the
Appellant husband. According to the learned counsel, the
facts recorded by the learned Family Court after
appreciating the evidence were sufficient to show that the
Appellant was entitled to a decree of divorce as per the
provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
7. We have carefully gone through the evidence adduced
by the parties before the trial Court and we tried to find out
as to why the appellate Court had taken a different view
than the one taken by the Family Court i.e. the trial Court.
8. The High Court came to the conclusion that there was
no cruelty meted out to the Appellant, which would enable
him to get a decree of divorce, as per the provisions of the
Act. The allegations with regard to the character of the
Appellant and the extra-marital affair with a maid were
taken very seriously by the Family Court, but the High
Court did not give much importance to the false allegations
made. The constant persuasion by the Respondent for
getting separated from the family members of the Appellant
and constraining the Appellant to live separately and only
with her was also not considered to be of any importance by
the High Court. No importance was given to the incident
with regard to an attempt to commit suicide made by the
Respondent wife. On the contrary, it appears that the High
Court found some justification in the request made by the
Respondent to live separately from the family of the
Appellant husband. According to the High Court, the trial
Court did not appreciate the evidence properly. For the
aforestated reasons, the High Court reversed the findings
arrived at by the learned Family Court and set aside the
decree of divorce.
9. We do not agree with the manner in which the High
Court has re-appreciated the evidence and has come to a
different conclusion.
10. With regard to the allegations of cruelty levelled by the
Appellant, we are in agreement with the findings of the trial
Court. First of all, let us look at the incident with regard to
an attempt to commit suicide by the Respondent. Upon
perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, the findings arrived
at by the trial Court to the effect that the Respondent wife
had locked herself in the bathroom and had poured
kerosene on herself so as to commit suicide, are not in
dispute. Fortunately for the Appellant, because of the noise
and disturbance, even the neighbours of the Appellant
rushed to help and the door of the bathroom was broken
open and the Respondent was saved. Had she been
successful in her attempt to commit suicide, then one can
foresee the consequences and the plight of the Appellant
because in that event the Appellant would have been put to
immense difficulties because of the legal provisions. We feel
that there was no fault on the part of the Appellant nor was
there any reason for the Respondent wife to make an
attempt to commit suicide. No husband would ever be
comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if
the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can
imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the
clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace
of mind, career and probably his entire life. The mere idea
with regard to facing legal consequences would put a
husband under tremendous stress. The thought itself is
distressing. Such a mental cruelty could not have been
taken lightly by the High Court. In our opinion, only this
one event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a
decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is needless to
add that such threats or acts constitute cruelty. Our
aforesaid view is fortified by a decision of this Court in the
case of Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple @ Kajal (2011) 12
SCC 1, wherein it has been held that giving repeated
threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty.
11. The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get
separated from his family. The evidence shows that the
family was virtually maintained from the income of the
Appellant husband. It is not a common practice or desirable
culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the
parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife,
especially when the son is the only earning member in the
family. A son, brought up and given education by his
parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and
maintain the parents, when they become old and when they
have either no income or have a meagre income. In India,
generally people do not subscribe to the western thought,
where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son
gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a
wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after
the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the
family of the husband and normally without any justifiable
strong reason, she would never insist that her husband
should get separated from the family and live only with her.
In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the
trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary
considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her
husband separated from his family. The averment of the
Respondent was to the effect that the income of the
Appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The
said grievance of the Respondent is absolutely unjustified.
A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in
Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for
which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated
from the family - the sole reason was to enjoy the income of
the Appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered
this to be a justifiable reason. In the opinion of the High
Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the
income of her husband is used for her and not for the
family members of the Respondent husband. We do not see
any reason to justify the said view of the High Court. As
stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious
obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife
makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and
normal custom of the society, she must have some
justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find
any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the
Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband
would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated
from his old parents and other family members, who are
also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of
the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be
separated from the family would be torturous for the
husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when
it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of
‘cruelty’.
12. With regard to the allegations about an extra-marital
affair with maid named Kamla, the re-appreciation of the
evidence by the High Court does not appear to be correct.
There is sufficient evidence to the effect that there was no
maid named Kamla working at the residence of the
Appellant. Some averment with regard to some relative has
been relied upon by the High Court to come to a conclusion
that there was a lady named Kamla but the High Court has
ignored the fact that the Respondent wife had levelled
allegations with regard to an extra-marital affair of the
Appellant with the maid and not with someone else. Even if
there was some relative named Kamla, who might have
visited the Appellant, there is nothing to substantiate the
allegations levelled by the Respondent with regard to an
extra-marital affair. True, it is very difficult to establish
such allegations but at the same time, it is equally true that
to suffer an allegation pertaining to one’s character of
having an extra-marital affair is quite torturous for any
person – be it a husband or a wife. We have carefully gone
through the evidence but we could not find any reliable
evidence to show that the Appellant had an extra-marital
affair with someone. Except for the baseless and reckless
allegations, there is not even the slightest evidence that
would suggest that there was something like an affair of the
Appellant with the maid named by the Respondent. We
consider levelling of absolutely false allegations and that
too, with regard to an extra-marital life to be quite serious
and that can surely be a cause for metal cruelty.
13. This Court, in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra
Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, 2003 (6) SCC 334 has
held as under:-
“7. The question that requires to be answered
first is as to whether the averments, accusations
and character assassination of the wife by the
appellant husband in the written statement
constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the
claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the
Act. The position of law in this regard has come
to be well settled and declared that levelling
disgusting accusations of unchastity and
indecent familiarity with a person outside
wedlock and allegations of extramarital
relationship is a grave assault on the character,
honour, reputation, status as well as the health
of the wife. 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. That 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
has also come to be firmly laid down by this
Court. On going through the relevant portions of
such allegations, we find that no exception could
be taken to the findings recorded by the Family
Court as well as the High Court. We find that
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.”
14. Applying the said ratio to the facts of this case, we are
inclined to hold that the unsubstantiated allegations
levelled by the Respondent wife and the threats and attempt
to commit suicide by her amounted to mental cruelty and
therefore, the marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree
of divorce on the ground stated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Act.
15. Taking an overall view of the entire evidence and the
judgment delivered by the trial Court, we firmly believe that
there was no need to take a different view than the one
taken by the trial Court. The behaviour of the Respondent
wife appears to be terrifying and horrible. One would find it
difficult to live with such a person with tranquility and
peace of mind. Such torture would adversely affect the life
of the husband. It is also not in dispute that the
Respondent wife had left the matrimonial house on 12th
July, 1995 i.e. more than 20 years back. Though not on
record, the learned counsel submitted that till today, the
Respondent wife is not staying with the Appellant. The
daughter of the Appellant and Respondent has also grown
up and according to the learned counsel, she is working in
an IT company. We have no reason to disbelieve the
aforestated facts because with the passage of time, the
daughter must have grown up and the separation of the
Appellant and the wife must have also become normal for
her and therefore, at this juncture it would not be proper to
bring them together, especially when the Appellant husband
was treated so cruelly by the Respondent wife.
16. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned
judgment delivered by the High Court. The decree of
divorce dated 17th November, 2001 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C. No.603 of 1995 is
hereby restored.
17. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to
costs.
.…………………………….J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
……………………………..J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 06, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment