Sushil Kumar Bharti v. Smt. Aradhana Das), under Section
Case Details
Court No. - 42 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 677 of 2017 AFR Appellant :- Smt. Aradhana Das Respondent :- Sushil Kumar Bharti Counsel for Appellant :- Hausihla Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Kushwaha,Ashish Upadhyay,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J. 1. Heard Shri Hausihla Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Sushil Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Appellant-defendant-wife has assailed the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2017, passed by the Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, in Marriage Petition No. 675 of 2011 (Sushil Kumar Bharti v. Smt. Aradhana Das), under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551, dissolving the marriage between
Legal Reasoning
the parties. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit under Section 13 of the Act, against the defendant-appellant for dissolution of marriage asserting that he got married with defendant on 21.04.2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals in Shagun Palace, Tulsipur Kareli, Allahabad. 4. Appellant-defendant pressurized him to live separately from his family members, whereupon, the respondent-plaintiff explained and persuaded her that he has responsibility of his parent, brothers and sisters and he being the eldest son of his parent. Thus, he is not capable of living separately from his family. Appellant-defendant got annoyed and started quarreling and dishonouring the family members. After three / four months of his marriage, he took 1 the Act appellant-defendant to Gorakhpur i.e. place of his posting so that there may not be any dispute in the family. Whenever, he sent money from his salary to his parent and family members to meet their necessities, appellant-defendant objected and started quarreling. To pressurize the respondent, she said that she will not live with him if respondent-plaintiff gave money to his family members. She started quarreling without any valid cause. After some time, appellant got pregnant; to ensure good health and care of the appellant, respondent-plaintiff left appellant-defendant in the house of his parent but there also she did not stay. Respondent- plaintiff further asserted in his plaint that in ninth month of her pregnancy, she called her parents on phone and left the house of the respondent along with all her ornaments and jewellery and went to her maternal house. Ten days after, appellant-defendant was delivered off a male-child, in her maternal home, but it was not intimated to the respondent-plaintiff. When he came to know about the birth of the child after four to five days, he went to his Sasural and made entire payment of the hospital expenses. Appellant- defendant returned to his house on the condition that he would pay his entire salary to her. She used to frequently quarrel with him and she talked to her parents and left for her maternal house without any reason in absence of the respondent or his family members. When respondent made a call to her, she clearly stated that he should not call further and she would talk to him in the Court, he tried to persuade her, but she threatened that she would recover a part of his salary in the Court. Respondent-plaintiff further stated in his plaint that appellant-defendant instituted a false case of domestic violence in the Court, wherein, plaintiff, his father, his brothers and his brother-in-law and one Chaman Lal were arrayed as party. It is further stated that in a suit filed by appellant- defendant, plaintiff deposited entire maintenance pursuant to the order of the Court. Thus, there has been no possibility of any compromise, defendant has been extending mental, physical and financial cruelty/harassment upon the respondent. On the ground of cruelty and desertion, plaintiff sought divorce from defendant- appellant. 5. Suit was duly contested by the appellant-defendant denying the allegations of the plaint. 6. Court below, after hearing the parties and examining the entire evidence on record, allowed the petition under Section 13 of the Act, dissolving the marriage between the two. 7. Being aggrieved, defendant-appellant filed the present appeal. 8. Marriage between both the parties is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the appellant-defendant is living separately in her maternal home along with the child. The respondent-plaintiff is an engineer. Institution of case under Section 498-A, 504, 506 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, and case under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (Aradhna Das v. Sushil Kumar Bharti and Others), by the appellant-defendant and the appellant- defendant separately living from her husband for some months after marriage is also not disputed. 9. While deciding the issue Nos. 1 and 2, Court below has noted that the defendant-appellant filed cases against the respondent-plaintiff under Dowry Prohibition Act, Domestic Violence Act, and complaint against the plaintiff with his department for harassment. The marital relation between both the parties no longer survives, defendant-appellant attempted to harass the respondent-plaintiff and cause damage to his reputation by filing frivolous applications with the employer which tantamounts to cruelty. Court below decided the issues in favour of plaintiff. The expression 'cruelty' has not been defined under the Act. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. 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. 10. In Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi2, Supreme Court held as follows:- "4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words "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 behaviour. 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. 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." 11. The cruelty has to be assessed having regard to the status of the parties in social life, their customs, traditions and other similar circumstances. The paramount considerations is as to whether the conduct of the party is such that it has become intolerable for the other party to suffer any longer and continue to live together has become impossible. 12. In GVN Kameshwara Rao Vs. G. Jabillia3, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "12. The Court has to come to a conclusion whether 2 3