Amit Raju Jadhav vs Sau. Puja Amit Jadhav

V.A. Naik, J—By this first appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Akola dated 22.08.2014, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce.

The appellant-Husband and the respondent-Wife were married according to Hindu rites and custom in Akola on 09.04.2012. A girl child was born to the parties from the wedlock. The appellant filed a Hindu Marriage Petition seeking a decree of divorce. It was pleaded in the petition that after the petitioner took the respondent to the matrimonial home, it was noticed by the appellant that the respondent was carrying pregnancy of two months. It was pleaded that the appellant still behaved well with the respondent, however, the respondent started fighting with the appellant on trifle issues. It was pleaded that the respondent went to her parents after fighting with the parents of the appellant on a number of occasions after the marriage though the period during which the parties cohabited was very small. It was pleaded that the respondent behaved with the appellant and his parents with cruelty. It was pleaded that after the girl child Pari was born to the parties, the respondent started residing with her parents. Time and again, according to the appellant, the respondent threatened the appellant and his family members that they would be put behind the bars. It was pleaded that on 05.08.2013, when the appellant was admitted in the hospital, the appellant was beaten up by four goons hired by the father of the respondent. It was pleaded that the respondent continuously abused the parents of the appellant on the ground that they were extremely poor and that she was not happy that her father cheated her and married her in the poor family. It was pleaded that the respondent purposely did not dress up properly and wore short clothes while living with the parents of the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent also doubted the character of the appellant and created a scene. It was pleaded that due to the extreme cruel behaviour of the respondent, the father of the appellant suffered a heart attack on two occasions and the mother of the appellant had consumed sleeping pills. It was pleaded that on more than a couple of occasions, the respondent and her relatives lodged false report against the appellant and his parents in the police station but, the police did not take any action against the appellant and his parents due to the falsity of the reports. It was pleaded that the respondent was not interested in the marriage and asked the appellant to pay her Rs. 10,00,000/- so that the marriage between the parties could be dissolved. It was pleaded that due to the cruel behaviour on the part of the respondent, it was impossible or the appellant to stay with the respondent under one roof and, hence, the appellant sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant also sought a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion as, according to the appellant, the respondent had left his company and started residing with her parents after the girl child was born.

Though served, the respondent did not file the written statement. The appellant tendered his evidence on affidavit. The appellant was not cross-examined at the behest of the respondent. The appellant reiterated the facts stated in the Hindu Marriage Petition in his evidence on affidavit. The appellant entered the witness box so that the documents filed by him, i.e. the N.C. Reports, the Medical Reports and the Notice, could be exhibited. After hearing the counsel for the appellant, the Family Court by the judgment dated 22.08.2014 dismissed the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the appellant.

Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that the appellant had not examined any witnesses to corroborate his evidence. It is submitted that the sufficiency of evidence cannot be decided on the basis of the number of witnesses examined by a party. It is stated that the Family Court committed an error in holding that on the basis of the evidence of the appellant, it cannot be said that he was treated with cruelty. It is submitted that the Family Court unnecessarily gave undue weightage to the fact that the couple was blessed with a female child which was nine months old while declining to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that it was necessary for the Family Court to discuss the evidence tendered by the appellant and then decide whether the appellant was treated by the respondent with cruelty. It is submitted that on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant and his family members were treated by the respondent with cruelty. The learned counsel, however, fairly stated that the appellant would not claim a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.

On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on a perusal of the original Record & Proceedings and the judgment of the Family Court, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this first appeal.

"I) Whether the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and whether the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce?

II) What order?"

To answer the points for determination, it would be necessary to peruse the pleadings and the evidence tendered by the appellant. The appellant had stated in his evidence that immediately after his marriage, he became aware that the respondent was carrying a foetus of two months but, still he behaved well with the respondent. Since the appellant behaved well with the respondent despite the knowledge about her alleged illegal pregnancy, the said fact cannot be considered as a ground for seeking a divorce on the ground of cruelty as the appellant had condoned the cruelty in that regard. The other evidence tendered by the appellant would, however, be relevant. The appellant had submitted in his evidence that the respondent used to quarrel with the appellant time and again and give insulting treatment to the appellant and his family members. The respondent used to go to her parents'' house after picking quarrel on trifle issues with the appellant and his family members and then threaten the appellant that he and his family members would be involved in criminal cases and would be put behind the bars. It was stated by the appellant in his evidence that on 05.08.2013, when he was admitted in the hospital, he was beaten up by the goons hired by the father of the respondent. The appellant had stated that the respondent used to abuse the appellant and his parents in filthy language. It was stated that the respondent always mentioned to the appellant that she disliked him as she was cheated by her parents by getting her married to a poor person. It was stated that the respondent unnecessarily suspected the character of the appellant. It was stated that the respondent sought a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It was stated that the father of the appellant suffered a heart attack on a couple of occasions due to the cruel behaviour of the respondent and the mother of the appellant had consumed sleeping pills because of the abuse at the hands of the respondent. It was stated that the respondent filed false complaints in the police station against the appellant and his family members to harass the appellant but, the police officials did not take any action against the appellant and his family members as they did not find any substance in the complaints. It was stated that the respondent often left the company of the appellant and went to her parents, never to return to her matrimonial house after their daughter Pari was born.

On a reading of the evidence tendered by the appellant, it is clear that the respondent treated the appellant and his family members with cruelty. The Family Court was not justified in holding that the appellant had failed to prove his case as his evidence was not corroborated by any witness. The burden of proving cruelty would surely lie on the appellant and the appellant had successfully discharged the burden by tendering the evidence to prove that the respondent had treated him with cruelty. The oral evidence of the appellant went uncontroverted as he was not cross-examined. Certain documents were also tendered by the appellant on record and these exhibited documents clearly showed that the appellant was required to file police complaints against the respondent and her family members on more than a couple of occasions. The evidence tendered by the appellant clearly showed that the marriage between the parties was irretrievably broken and it was not possible for the appellant to stay with the respondent under one roof. The Family Court erroneously held that the facts stated by the husband in the evidence were not sufficient to prove cruelty. We reiterate that the facts stated in the evidence if considered cumulatively, would clearly show that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. Merely because the appellant did not examine any other witness, it cannot be said that he had failed to prove cruelty on the part of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly relied on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 07/08/09.04.2014 in First Appeal No. 1016 of 2011 to substantiate his submission that the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence would not depend on the number of witnesses examined. A party could successfully discharge the burden by tendering his evidence. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for considering the sufficiency of evidence in each case. It cannot be said that a party would not be entitled to prove the cruelty on the part of the spouse on his or her sole testimony. We found that both the reasons recorded by the Family Court for declining to grant a decree of divorce are not proper. We find that the respondent had treated the appellant and his family members with cruelty and the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the first appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Family Court is modified. The Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The dismissal of the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion is confirmed. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Order accordingly. No costs.