Chothiya, Police Station Atru, Tehsil Atru, District Baran. vs Ram Vilas S/o Ramgopal, Resident of Sarkandiya, Police Station

: Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi Mr. Rakesh Saini Mr. Aditya Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT 15/04/2025 Order This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as ‘wife’) against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2011 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘husband’) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) was allowed and the marriage solemnized by the parties was dissolved. Brief facts of the case are that the husband filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 against the wife and the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.05.2005 thereafter out of their said wedlock one daughter was born, the husband filed a divorce petition seeking decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, wherein he stated in his application that [2025:RJ-JP:16115-DB] (2 of 7) [CMA-7004/2011] when the daughter was born, the wife was living separately with her parents, therefore, sought decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The wife filed reply to the said application wherein she stated that the husband himself has deserted her and not ready to keep with him. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Þ vk;k izkFkhZ ds lkFk djhc lok nks lky ls foi{kh;k ugha jg jgh gSa rFkk mlus izkFkhZ dk vfHkR;tu dj j[kk gS \ 2. Þ vuqrks"kA In support of the contention, the husband submitted his own evidence as AW-1 and also submitted the evidences of AW-2 Bherulal, AW-3 Hemraj and AW-4 Ramgopal. Wife in support of her own contention, submitted her own evidence as NAW-1. Learned counsel for the wife submitted that the wife is ready and willing to live with the husband from very beginning and since the behavior of the husband was cruel with the wife, therefore, she was forced to leave her metrimonial home. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. The point of cruelty has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at length & depth in catena of judgments and in a recent judgment delivered in the matter of Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavita (Civil Appeal No.2012/2013) decided on

26.01.2023, wherein in Paras No.17 and 18, it has been has held as under:- “17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the context where it has been used, [2025:RJ-JP:16115-DB] (3 of 7) [CMA-7004/2011] which is as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to be seen as a ‘human conduct’ and ‘behavior” in a matrimonial relationship. While dealing in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be physical as well as mental:- “ 46…If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. Whether Cruelty can be even unintentional:- …The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill- treatment.” This Court though did ultimately give certain illustrations of mental cruelty. Some of these are as follows: (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. (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 [2025:RJ-JP:16115-DB] (4 of 7) [CMA-7004/2011] 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 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. (emphasis supplied)

18. We have a married couple before us who have barely stayed together as a couple for four years and who have now been living separately for the last 25 years. There is no child out of the wedlock. The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond repair. We have no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act. We therefore hold that in a given case, such as the one at hand, where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 25 years), with multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other. We are also conscious of the fact that a dissolution of this marriage would affect only the two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock.”

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja reported in 2017 (14) SCC 194 wherein para No.11, it is held as under:- “11. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it [2025:RJ-JP:16115-DB] (5 of 7) [CMA-7004/2011] is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"). However, if it is found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty. In the present case, all the allegations were found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her husband along with some other persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not only was the complaint false but also the injuries were self-inflicted by the wife. Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife under Section 182 IPC.”

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sivasankaran Vs. Santhimeenal reported in 2022 (15) SCC 742 wherein para No.25, it is held as under:- In view of the legal position which we have referred to aforesaid, these continuing acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to the institution of the petition, as was found by the trial court. This conduct shows disintegration of marital unity and thus disintegration of the marriage. In fact, there was no initial integration which would allow disintegration afterwards. The fact that there have been continued allegations and litigative proceedings and that can amount to cruelty is an aspect taken note of by this Court. The marriage having not taken off from its inception and 5 years having been spent in the trial court, it is difficult to accept that the marriage soon after the decree of divorce, within 6 days, albeit 6 years after the initial inception of marriage, itself [2025:RJ-JP:16115-DB] (6 of 7) [CMA-7004/2011] amounts to conduct which can be held against the appellant. We have gone through the evidence of NAW-1-wife recorded by the learned Family Court, wherein, in her cross-examination she has stated that her husband came to her house for taking her back in the matrimonial home, however she refused to go with the husband because she has lodged a criminal case against the husband under Section 498-A of IPC. She has further admitted that she has no confidence in the husband and she has received several notices from the lawyer of husband, however, she refused to live with the husband and not given any reply to the said notices. She further admitted that in the Lok Adalat also conciliation took place for living with the husband but she refused. She also stated that she does not want to take divorce from her husband. We have also considered the fact that admittedly wife has lodged two criminal cases against the husband, out of which, one is under Section 498-A of IPC and another is under Section 125 Cr.P.C. We are of the considered view that lodging of criminal cases against the husband amounts to cruelty even after filing of the divorce petition. We have also considered the fact that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court on issue no.1 with regard to desertion is based on sound appreciation of the evidence, more particularly the evidence of NAW-1-wife, whereas, in her cross-examination she has stated that she does not want to live with the husband at any cost. [2025:RJ-JP:16115-DB] (7 of 7) [CMA-7004/2011] We have also considered the fact that husband and wife both are living separately for more than 15 years and asking both of them to live together at this juncture amounts to cruelty with both of them. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court, hence this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to file an appropriate application for permanent alimony before the concerned Trial Court. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J GAURAV SHARMA /76