The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Anjan Kumar Geeta First Appeal No. 82 of 2020 ... Versus Appellant … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent C.A.V. on 31.08.2023 Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J. : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : None --- Delivered on .10.2023 JUDGMENT 1. 2. 3. 4. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2020 and decree dated 14.07.2020 passed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Original Suit No. 213 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant u/s 13(1)(i-a)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in the learned court below. The petitioner (appellant herein) had filed a suit u/s 13(1) (i-a) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage with the respondent (respondent herein), wherein it has been averred that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with the respondent on
Legal Reasoning
27.05.2017 at Hotel Sri Vinayaka, PTC Road, Hazaribag and after marriage he started residing together at Suresh Colony, Hazaribag. However, after a few days of marriage the respondent had a perceptible change in her behaviour and started committing cruelty upon the petitioner and his family members. The respondent never paid attention to the petitioner and his old parents and used abusive language against them. She also used to frequently go out of the house without any permission. When the erratic behaviour of the respondent was brought to the knowledge of the father of respondent, he admitted that she is suffering from some mental disease and he 2 had taken away the respondent for her treatment. The respondent returned on 02.04.2019 and again started misbehaving with everyone. The respondent had thereafter left the house of the petitioner and had taken away Rs. 50,000/- in cash, ornaments and other articles with her. The petitioner had made a complaint before the President of the society, but in spite of notice to the respondent, she did not appear before the society. 5. 6. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and the matter was referred for mediation, but she thereafter did not appear and ultimately, the suit proceeded ex parte. The petitioner has examined as many as four witnesses in support of his case. PW 1 Baijnath Prasad Gupta has stated that he is acquainted with the petitioner as well as the respondent. After marriage both started residing together as husband and wife at Suresh Colony, Hazaribag. After a few days of marriage, the respondent started treating the petitioner and his family members with cruelty. The respondent had also on several occasions tried to commit the murder of her husband. The respondent is a mental patient who used to flee away from home. She had accepted the fact that she is a mental patient and this was kept under wraps at the time of her marriage. He has stated that on 02.04.2019, the respondent had left her house after taking Rs. 50,000/- cash, jewelleries and other articles. In spite of a notice given to the respondent on behalf of the society, she did not choose to appear before it. On a court question, he has stated that he and the petitioner are business partners. He had not witnessed any quarrel between the petitioner and the respondent. He has stated that he has never met the respondent. PW 2 Anjan Kumar is the petitioner who had stated about his marriage solemnised with the respondent and the cruel behaviour adopted by her after a few days of marriage upon him and his family members. The respondent had also assaulted him on several occasions leading to injuries suffered by him. He has stated that the respondent is mentally ill who used to damage the household articles 3 and also used to flee away from the house. The respondent had accepted the fact of her being a mental patient which was never disclosed at the time of marriage. Due to such rude and incoherent behaviour, his life has been ruined. On 02.04.2019, she had left the house along with cash, jewellaries and other articles. He has stated that in spite of notice being served to the respondent, she did not appear before the society. On a court question, he has deposed that he had on several occasions gone to the parents’ house of the respondent and had called her up on phone, but every time, she has refused to return back to her matrimonial house. PW 3 Abhishek Kumar is acquainted with the petitioner and the respondent. He has deposed about the marriage as well as the cruelty meted out by the respondent upon the petitioner and his family members. He has reiterated whatever has been stated by PW 1 and PW 2. On a court question he has stated that he had accompanied the petitioner to bring back the respondent, but she had refused to return. PW 4 Naresh Prasad is the father of the petitioner, who has stated about the marriage solemnised between his son and the respondent on 27.05.2017. After a few days of marriage, the behaviour of the respondent changed and she started treating everyone with cruelty. She is a mental patient which was admitted by her and this fact was supressed at the time of marriage. She used to abuse and had also injured the petitioner due to the assault committed by her. He has stated that on 02.04.2019, the respondent had left her matrimonial house and she had taken away with her cash of Rs. 50,000/-, jewelleries and other articles. The President of the society was informed, but she did not appear though she was noticed to appear. On a court question, he has stated that the respondent never wants to reside with the petitioner and she always used to quarrel with him. The respondent adopted a cruel behaviour against him, the petitioner and his other family members. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent is a woman of 4 unsound mind which has been fortified by the evidence of the witnesses and which remained uncontroverted. It has been submitted that the findings of the learned court below is contradictory as on the one hand it has observed that once a person is mentally sick, he or she cannot knowingly commit cruelty while on the other hand it has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has not brought any Doctor to prove that the respondent is mentally sick. Mr. Sinha has submitted that repeated assault upon the petitioner by the respondents amounts to cruelty and the act of the assault has been consistently stated by the witnesses of the petitioner. He has in support of his contentions put reliance in the case of Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple alias Kajal reported in (2011) 12 SCC 1 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner and have also perused the lower court record. 9. The suit has been instituted by the petitioner on the allegation that cruelty was inflicted upon him and his family members by the respondent and that she was of an unsound mind. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, the broad parameters as guiding factors have been laid down so far as mental cruelty is concerned and the same reads as follows:- “98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of “mental cruelty” within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 5 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant 6 danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law 7 in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” 10. Mr. Indrajit Sinha while placing reliance on the aforequoted judgment has strongly urged us to consider the spectrum of the present case in the light of Para 101(v) and 101(xiv). 11. He has also placed reliance on the Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple alias Kajal reported in (2011) 12 SCC 1 and the relevant reads as follows:- 35. It is well settled that giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty. When such a thing is repeated in the form of sign or gesture, no spouse can live peacefully. In the case on hand, the appellant husband has placed adequate materials to show that the respondent wife used to give repeated threats to commit suicide and once even tried to commit suicide by jumping from the terrace. Cruelty postulates a treatment of a spouse with such cruelty as to create reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the other party. The acts of the respondent wife are of such quality or magnitude and consequence as to cause pain, agony and suffering to the appellant husband which amounted to cruelty in matrimonial law. 36. From the pleadings and evidence, the following instances of cruelty are specifically pleaded and stated. They are: (i) Giving repeated threats to commit suicide and even trying to commit suicide on one occasion by jumping from the terrace. (ii) Pushing the appellant from the staircase resulting into fracture of his right forearm. (iii) Slapping the appellant and assaulting him. (iv) Misbehaving with the colleagues and relatives of the appellant causing humiliation and embarrassment to him. (v) Not attending to household chores and not even making food for the appellant, leaving him to fend for himself. (vi) Not taking care of the baby. 8 (vii) Insulting the parents of the appellant and misbehaving with them. (viii) Forcing the appellant to live separately from his parents. (ix) Causing nuisance to the landlord’s family of the appellant, causing the said landlord to force the appellant to vacate the premises. (x) Repeated fits of insanity, abnormal behaviour causing great mental tension to the appellant. (xi) Always quarrelling with the appellant and abusing him. (xii) Always behaving in an abnormal manner and doing weird acts causing great mental cruelty to the appellant. 37. All these factual details culled out from the pleadings and evidence of both the parties clearly show the conduct of the respondent wife towards the appellant husband. With these acceptable facts and details, it cannot be concluded that the appellant husband has not made out a case of cruelty at the hands of the respondent wife. We are satisfied that the appellant husband had placed ample evidence on record that the respondent wife is suffering from “mental disorder” and due to her acts and conduct, she caused grave mental cruelty to him and it is not possible for the parties to live with each other, therefore, a decree of divorce deserves to be granted in favour of the appellant husband. In addition to the same, it was also brought to our notice that because of the abovementioned reasons, both the appellant husband and the respondent wife are living separately for the last more than nine years. There is no possibility to unite the chain of marital life between the appellant husband and the respondent wife. 12. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised on 25.7.2017 and it is the consistent case of the petitioner that she had left her matrimonial house on 02.04.2019. The suit for dissolution of marriage was preferred in the year 2019 itself. So far as cruelty is concerned, what has been highlighted by the petitioner and other witnesses in a consistent fashion is that after the marriage the behaviour of the respondent underwent a sea change and she started abusing the petitioner and his family members and also resorted to committing assault upon the petitioner. The other aspect of the matter is the mental disorder of the respondent, which according to the 9 petitioner is reflected in her incoherent behaviour, damaging household articles, physically assaulting the petitioner and admitting about the presence of such mental disorder which was deliberately under wraps during the marriage. The respondent did not contest the suit in spite of appearing initially on being noticed and the suit was decided ex parte. The respondent did not even appear in this appeal. However, her non-appearance would not act as an added advantage to the petitioner as he has to prove his own case. 13. The plaint as well as the evidence adduced by the petitioner and others highlight the vagueness of the allegations levelled against the respondents. Not a single instance has been described instilling a semblance of mental cruelty committed by the respondents. The case of Pankaj Mahajan (Supra) can be easily distinguishable since in the said case various instances showing cruelty had been depicted by the husband. The petitioner has alleged about suffering injuries on several occasions at the hands of the respondent, but not a single chit of paper has been produced by the petitioner to indicate that he was ever treated due to such assault by a medical practitioner. So far as the mental disorder is concerned, even if it is assumed that the respondent had damaged household articles, the same cannot be construed to be amplifying mental disorder as normal and sane persons sometimes acts likewise in a fit of rage. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner to show that the respondent is a patient of mental illness. 14. The judgment in the case of Samar Ghosh (Supra) will not be of much assistance either to the case of the petitioner as sustained aggression and continuous separation which has been culled out by Mr. Sinha for adorning his submission seems to be lacking in the present case. The petitioner and the respondent had resided together for a fraction less than two years and immediately on the respondent leaving her matrimonial house, the suit was instituted. Even the leaving of the matrimonial house by the respondent did not evoke any complaint to the authorities though a communication was made in writing by the petitioner on 03.04.2019 to the President of the society to which the petitioner belongs. 10 15. So far as the contradictions in the judgment pointed out by Mr. Sinha is concerned, we on a perusal of the same find the impugned judgment to be consistent and well reasoned. The observation in the judgment that once a person is mentally sick he or she cannot knowingly commit cruelty appears to be a fleeting reference to the conduct of a person who is in mental disharmony and in all probability not made in the context of the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the respondent. 16. We therefore on the basis of the discussions made herein above come to a conclusion that no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Original Suit No. 213 of 2019 and this appeal as a consequence to the above is dismissed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)