Date of Judgment:
29TH March 2022.
Bench:
Mr. SheelNagu, J.
Mr. Anand Pathak, J.
Parties:
Appellant – Rajesh Bhoyale.
Respondents – Smt. Mahadevi.
Subject
The Hon’ble High Court(hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble High Court’ or ‘the Court’), in the present instance observed that a long-running quarrel is a mental cruelty to a party who wishes to live in a domestic partnership and in peace. The Court thus allowed the appeal filed by the aggrieved husband before the Hon’ble High Court where his previous application filed before the Family Court was rejected U/s. 13(1)(iA) of the HMA Act, 1955 seeking relief.
Legal Provisions
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Section 13–states that any marriage solemnized whether before or after the beginning of this Act, may be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a petition brought by either the husband or the wife on the grounds that the other person has committed adultery..
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
- Order 18, Rule 4 – states that the evidence of a witness of his examination-in-chief shall be delivered by affidavit in every case, and duplicates thereof shall be provided to the opposing party by the party who summons him for evidence.
BRIEF FACTS
- In this instant petition, the appellant/husband submitted that he and his wife’s marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites in the year 2004. Subsequently, his wife, due to her own reasons, compelled the appellant/husband to change his house and live away from his parents with the respondent/wife in a nuclear family setting for domestic peace.
- It was further submitted that out of the said wedlock, 2 children were born and both of them were male children. One of them was of 14 years of age while filing the application for divorce, while the other one passed away at the age of 3 years due to the negligence of the respondent/wife.
- Further, it was also noted that despite living separately the wife used to quarrel with the appellant/husband and used to leave for her matrimonial home. Also the respondent took no interest in doing household/domestic work. Further it was also alleged that the respondent/wife used to stay on the call with some random unknown person engaging into conversations which would last hours and upon being asked about the same, she used to ignore the questions.
- The appellant/husband pleaded for the grant of decree for divorce due to domestic incompatibility between the husband and the wife under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Additionally, the respondent/wife did not appear for the proceedings and remained absent during the trial due to which no cross-examination of the evidence could be done by the Court, the respondent/wife received the notice issued to the respondent/wife for the same but she remained ex partethus the instant matter was heard in the absence of the respondent.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the misconduct complained of constitutes cruelty and will the like for divorce purposes is determined by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the said act?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Hon’ble High Court noted that there was domestic incompatibility and on certain occasions, both the husband and the wife resorted to heated arguments and verbal splats.Further the parties also resorted to mediation proceedings which did not result in an amicable solution between the parties, further it also observed that in the earlier instance of mediation proceedings Court availed settlements were struck and remained pending for years.
- The Hon’ble Court further noted that in the pleadings made by the counsels for the appellant it can be noted that the wife regularly extended threats to the appellant and in many instances, she indulged in physical violence coupled with verbal spalt. Also there were several intimidations by the wife to the husband for falsely implicating him in a false case.
- Additionally, it was noted by the Court that the appellant pointed out that a compromise deed was reached in which the respondent was instructed to reside with her husband in her matrimonial home with some minor instructions, further pledging that the respondent would not argue with her mother-in-law and father-in-law and she would only visit her home on religious occasions.
- The Hon’ble Court perused the attested affidavits and evidence on record and ascertained that for a long time the appellant and respondent shared domestic incompatibility, and the respondent's behavior, in which she consistently created annoyance, threat, intimidation, and avoiding cohabitation on one pretext or another, jointly entitled the appellant to a divorce decision.
- Also multiple instances of behavioral changes of the respondent over the court of the time and arising disputes at different stages of cohabitation clearly show that both the parties shared domestic incompatibility.
- The Hon’ble Court placed reliance on the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, 1975, where the Court reasoned that “the inquiry is not whether the behavior would be cruel to a reasonable person or someone with ordinary or normal sensibilities, but whether it would be cruel to the aggrieved spouse. What is cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what is not harsh to one individual under one set of circumstances may be tremendous cruelty under another”.
- Thus, the Court in this instance appreciating all the facts and circumstances stated that the Family Court in rejecting the application for Divorce where divorce ought to have been passed in the best interest of justice to the parties, further stated that a long-standing dispute is in itself mental cruelty to the party who does not wish to reside with each other.
CONCLUSION
Allowing the appeal the Court averred the application under section 13 of the Act and stated that the Appellant is entitled to get a divorce from his wife, the Court further stated that since the respondent/wife remained ex parte through out the Trial no contentions have been made for alimony but she may be entitled to receive maintenance at the option of her’s to apply for the same in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, Family Laws HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
