Rajeev Ranjan vs Gitanjali Kumari

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 24.08.2022 and decree signed on 01.09.2022 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.312 of 2015 filed by the plaintiff-appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

The brief facts of the case of the appellant-husband as narrated in the plaint, is that the marriage between appellant (plaintiff) and respondent (defendant) was solemnized on 06.06.2014 at Teus District Sheikhpura as per Hindu rites and customs in presence of their relatives and friends and after marriage the appellant along with the respondent came to Adarsh Nagar, Tatisilwai Ranchi and they lived together in the house of appellant as husband and wife.

It has further been stated that after two days of the marriage the respondent’s behaviour became very rude against the appellant and his family members and she started torturing them with her behaviour and her taunt. She started quarrelling with appellant's mother and torturing with rude language and she told to the appellant's mother "Bhikhmanga and mere Papa Ke Samne Tumlogo Ki Aukat Kuch Bhi Nahi Hai, Tum Log Ek Bhikmanga Pariwar Ke WansAj Ho" and she started to pressurize the appellant to live alone from his family.

It has further been stated that respondent used to quarrel with the appellant and abused him in filthy language and she also not supported to sexual right (bed share) and she also did not give respect to the appellant and his family members.

On 21.06.2014 in the presence of family members and neighbours of the appellant the respondent abused the appellant and assaulted him with slap and on that day appellant went to Chennai on his duty and in the meantime, she continuously quarreled with the appellant's family.

It has further been stated that the appellant returned on 23.08.2014 to his home but behaviour of respondent/wife was same and she had not supported the sexual right with the appellant and she also quarreled with the appellant and his family members and after two days the appellant returned to his job and he also returned in October, 2014 and December, 2014 respectively but the respondent's behaviour was rude against the appellant and she never supported the sexual right to the appellant.

It has further been stated that the respondent after marriage since beginning on the instruction of her parents and brother always created problem to the appellant and his family members and she also threatened the appellant and his family members to falsely implicate them in a criminal case and other cases.

It has further been stated that on 15.03.2015 the respondent went to her parental home along with her brother taking all the ornaments, sarees, two chain and one gold ring of the appellant.

It has further been stated that the above ornaments which she kept along with her had been given by the appellant at the time of marriage and the respondent never wants to live with the appellant at Ranchi and she wants to live in her parental home and she also pressurized to the appellant to leave the job and reside along with her.

It has further been stated that the respondent follows all the instructions given by her parents and maternal brother and she always neglected the appellant and her old mother-in-law. The respondent has never given proper respect to the appellant and his family members. The appellant and his mother, after the marriage, are taking all the care about the respondent and they fulfilled her all needs and requirement.

It has further been stated that the appellant several times approached to the respondents and her parents but the respondent's parents did not agree to send her and the respondent also did not want to come and live with the appellant on the instruction of her parents.

It has further been stated that the respondent's father and brother and the respondent's brother-in-law always threatened the appellant to live in his in-laws house otherwise face the consequences and they were also ready to assault the appellant and brother of the respondent also threatened the appellant to kill him.

It has further been stated that from the conduct and behaviour of the respondent the life of the appellant has been ruined and the appellant was passing a deserted life in absence of respondent. The appellant came to the conclusion that the respondent will not live with him and hence there is no option but to file a suit for dissolution of marriage.

The appellant has, thus, prayed that in the light of what has been averred in the plaint duly supported with an affidavit, a decree of divorce be kindly passed in favour of the appellant and as against the respondent-wife.

The case was admitted for hearing. It is pertinent to mention here that initially this suit was proceeded ex parte against the respondent vide order dated 15.02.2017 and ex parte evidence of two witnesses had been recorded. Later on, respondent appeared in this suit and vide order dated 21.06.2017 ex parte order against respondent was recalled and thereafter respondent filed her written statement.

In her written statement she has strongly denounced the contentions of the appellant, as made in the plaint and refuted the allegations made against her.

By virtue of her written statement, the respondent-wife has inter alia stated that the petition filed on behalf of appellant who is husband of respondent is neither maintainable under the law nor on the fact and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

It has further been contended that the respondent is residing in the house of appellant as per address mentioned in his petition but the appellant sent all the notices to another fake and false address. The respondent when came to know the motive of the appellant to take divorce from her by way of false pleading or address, she appeared before this court and filed petition.

It has further been stated that all the allegation levelled in the petition under reply are false and baseless because the respondent never committed any type of mistake, never misbehaved with the appellant or his family members and due to illicit relationship with the another lady of his company, the appellant forced her to give divorce to him but when the respondent refused to give divorce to him he started torturing in the name of demand of dowry.

It has further been stated that against the demand of dowry the respondent lodged a case vide Tatisilwai P.S. Case No. 40/2016 against the appellant and his family members and in the said case, during hearing of bail petition, the appellant started taking time in the name of mediation with the respondent and filed this case for divorce against her and in this case the appellant has given false address in the plaint and also issued notice on false address in place of his address because at the time of filing of divorce the respondent was living with the appellant in his house as wife and husband and till today she is living in said house of appellant but the appellant never told about this case and when the respondent appeared in this case before the learned court, the appellant made false promise before her that he will withdraw this case and live with her and the respondent who has got no legal knowledge about the law of family court could not file written statement on time.

It has been stated that the respondent has filed the show cause and denied all the allegations levelled against her by the appellant only with a view to obtain divorce from her keeping her in dark and hence prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the appellant with heavy cost.

The case proceeded for evidence during which the appellant has produced and examined two witnesses including himself.

The respondent-wife has produced and examined altogether three witnesses including herself.

The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed four issues for adjudication of the lis, which were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and decreed the suit on contest in the following terms  :

“17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the discussion made above, I find and hold that plaintiff has not been able to prove his case against the defendant even to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, I find and hold that he is not entitled to a decree as claimed for.”

The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 24.08.2022 and decree signed on 01.09.2022 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi approached this Court by filing the instant appeal.

Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has submitted that the Learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff/appellant has produced credible evidence which are sufficient to establish that the respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and on account of cruelty, the plaintiff / appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce.

Further, it has been submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue no.III (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption, therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law.

Submission has also been made that the learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the plaintiff /appellant has successfully substantiated the allegation that the respondent has deprived him from cohabitation and, therefore, the plaintiff / appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce. But that aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Family Court.

It has lastly been submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of plaintiff / appellant and, thus, came to wrong conclusion.

It has been argued on behalf of appellant that altogether two witnesses have been examined in this case including appellant and both have consistently supported that behaviour of respondent was very rude towards appellant and his family members and she used to quarrel and abuse them and she also assaulted the appellant in presence of neighbour and family members.

It has been further argued that conjugal relation between appellant and respondent has not established as respondent never supported the sexual right and respondent also left her matrimonial house and thereafter, she did not return to live with the appellant.

It has further been argued that from the evidence it is evident there is no possibility of reunion as wife and husband between appellant and respondent and it is not possible to continue their matrimonial relationship without mental agony, torture and distress hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court needs interference.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi requires interference.

Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife

Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and on the ground that the respondent-wife does not want to live with the appellant as such the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent but the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the evidence, has held that the appellant has not been able to prove that the defendant subjected him with cruelty to the extent required by law and has rightly dismissed the suit.

It has been argued on behalf of respondent that she never treated the appellant with cruelty rather evidences on record depict that it is the respondent who is sufferer and being tortured mentally and physically by the appellant and his family members for demand of dowry and in this regard the respondent has also lodged criminal case against the appellant and his family members vide Tatisilwai P.S. Case No. 40 of 2016.

It has further been argued that appellant has not come with clean hands and has filed the suit by suppressing the material fact that appellant was still living in her matrimonial house when this suit was filed in the year 2015 and the appellant has concealed this fact and mentioned wrong and false address in his matrimonial petition and filed the suit for dissolution of marriage.

It has been further submitted that respondent is always ready and willing to live with appellant but it is the appellant who was adamant to give her divorce.

Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty because the appellant has miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty against her.

Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that the appellant has alleged that the respondent is living with her parents and despite his efforts, her parents are not ready to send her to matrimonial house which is not true since the respondent is still living in the house of the appellant and learned Family Court, taking into consideration the evidence led by the respondent-wife, has rightly rejected the prayer for divorce made by the appellant.

Submission has been made that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on the backdrop of the evidence led by the parties has come to the conclusion that mere allegation of cruelty against the defendant is not suffice to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty unless and until it is established by the cogent and reliable piece of evidence that the conduct and character of the defendant was unbearable to the plaintiff and it was not possible for him in normal course of nature to lead conjugal life with defendant and the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the defendant subjected him with cruelty to the extent required by law.

Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court

Analysis

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the material available on record and the finding recorded in the impugned order.

This Court, before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, requires to consider the testimonies of the witnesses, as available on record.

The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced three witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under :-

PW-1 Rajeev Ranjan is appellant himself and he has reiterated his plaint in his affidavited examination-in-chief and has stated that he is plaintiff of this suit and he has filed this case against his wife respondent.

He has further stated that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 06.06.2014 and after marriage the respondent came to her matrimonial home at Tatisilwai, Ranchi and after 2-3 days of marriage the behaviour of respondent towards him and his family members became cruel and she started torturing him and his family members.

It has also been stated that the respondent used to quarrel and assault his mother and also used to misbehave with his sister and even she did not allow him to have sexual right over her and due to which he sustained mental pain and agony.

He has further stated that on 21.06.2014 the respondent, in presence of family members of the appellant, abused him in filthy words and also assaulted him. Thereafter, he went to Chennai for his work and the respondent used to quarrel with his mother and other family members and also threatened them to implicate in false case.

He has further stated that after some days, he returned from Chennai but the behaviour of respondent was not changed and she flatly refused to have sexual relation with him.

Again, he went to his job and the respondent along with her family members started pressurizing him to transfer the house of Adarsh Nagar in her name and they started threatening if the said property will not be transferred in the name of respondent, they will implicate them in a false case.

He has further stated that the respondent often used to go to her maika and did not give any respect to her in-laws. On 15.03.2015, the respondent left her matrimonial home and thereafter she refused to live with him.

It has further been stated that his father has filed informatory petition u/s 39 Cr.P.C. vide no. 774/2015 dated 24.08.2015. Thereafter, the respondent has lodged FIR vide Tatisilwai PS Case No. 40/2016 dated 31.05.2016 u/s 498A,354/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

He has further stated that the respondent has also filed case against his father for outraging her modesty which is pending in the court of Ld. CJM, Ranchi.

In his cross-examination the said witness has stated that the respondent, who is his wife, is living in his house and he is living at Kolkata for his job and in Ranchi he has only house in which respondent is residing.

He has stated that he did not make complaint anywhere regarding the occurrence. He has stated that he has not mentioned the day and time of occurrence dated 21.06.2014. He has also not mentioned the name of person in whose presence the occurrence was occurred.

He has further stated that on 23.06.2014 he went to Chennai alone and he did not go with respondent.

He has further stated that after one year of marriage he has filed this case against his wife and at that time the respondent was not living at his house rather she was residing at her Maika.

He has stated that his wife refused to come to her matrimonial home after one and half months of filing of this case and thereafter he was transferred to Hyderabad and from there he was transferred to Kolkata and in due course he used to come at Ranchi in every two months.

He has stated that he does not know when was last time he talked over phone with his wife but whenever he came to Ranchi then talk was initiated with her.

He has stated that he went to his Sasural only once at the time of marriage. He has stated that prior to filing this case he never sent any legal notice to his wife. He has stated that Panchayati took place at Tatisilwai but no written paper was made.

He has stated that relationship between them as husband and wife is not sustained for single day. He has not filed any case regarding threatening given to him by his wife.

He has stated that he did not take his wife at his place of posting. He has stated that he is working at T.C.S. in Kolkata and presently his salary is Rs. 70,000/-per month and he is on the post of Associate consultant and he used to give Rs. 5,000/- to his wife for maintenance as per direction of the Court. He paid the maintenance till February, 2021 and thereafter he is giving maintenance from September, 2021 and he has not given maintenance for five months.

He has stated that presently the respondent is living at his house at Ranchi. He has stated that his marriage was solemnized on 06.06.2014.

He has stated that he has not filed complaint in any court regarding cruelty made by his wife. He denied that he filed this case while living in conjugal relation with the respondent. He denied that he wants to leave the respondent because she is less educated and belongs to rural surroundings. He denied that he has illicit relation with some other lady due to which he filed this divorce case and he denied that he has made false allegation against the respondent.

P.W. 2 Ramadhar Sharma @ Ramadhar Singh, father of appellant has fully supported the case of appellant and he has stated more or less the similar version as stated by the appellant in his evidence and he has stated that the marriage of appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 06.06.2014 and after marriage the respondent came to her Sasural at Adarsh Nagar, Tatisilwai, Ranchi and after 2-3 days of marriage the behaviour of respondent towards her in-laws became cruel and she used to torture the appellant and his family members.

He has stated that the respondent also used to quarrel and abuse with his wife and also used to misbehave with his son.

He has stated that on 21.06.2014 the respondent abused the appellant in filthy language and also assaulted the appellant.

He has stated that after some days when his son came from Chennai then the behaviour of respondent did not change and she refused to make relation with the appellant as husband and wife and also humiliated him by saying "Badchalan Kurup Nich Kul ke Aadmi".

He has stated that respondent at the instance of her family members threatened them to implicate in false case if they do not transfer the house in her name.

He has stated that respondent along with her family members used to threaten them to implicate in false case and second time she also made complain in police station and police also came but went away after giving instruction.

He has stated that on 15.03.2015 the respondent left her matrimonial home and she refused to live with the appellant.

He has stated that due to such cruel behaviour one informatory petition vide case no. 774/15 was filed.

He has stated that in October, 2015 the respondent came to her Sasural and started living there and after few days she ousted him and locked the door from inside and after interference of neighbour she opened the door.

He has further stated that on 31.05.2016 she lodged FIR in Tatisilwai PS Case vide case no. 40/2016 u/s 498A, 354/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

In his cross examination he has stated that the respondent is living in his house which was constructed by him.

He has further stated that he has made complaint regarding abuse and misbehave made by respondent before the police station but he has no any such document and he has not complained in any forum. He has stated that his son is an engineer in TCS and presently he is getting salary of Rs. 50-60 thousand per month.

He has stated that respondent filed case on 31.05.2016 for dowry demand and torture. He has stated that due to humiliation of respondent this divorce case was filed. He has stated that he and his family members filed this case. He has stated that in writing he has not made any complaint against the respondent.

The respondent-wife has also adduced three witnesses, including herself, in support of her case which are being dealt hereunder as :-

DW-1 Geetanjali Kumari is respondent herself. She has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the appellant according to Hindu rites and rituals on 06.06.2014 and after marriage she went to her Sasural and she lived with her husband for few days peacefully but thereafter the behaviour of her husband and in-laws towards her was cruel and when their demand of dowry was not fulfilled, she was subjected to torture by them.

She has further stated that the case which has been filed by her husband against her is not true and her husband made false and concocted allegations against her.

She has stated that this case has been filed by her husband by suppressing the material fact that at the time of filing of this case he was living with her as husband and wife in the same house.

She has further stated that when her husband came from his job, he resided with her in the same room. She has further stated that it is true that after marriage she was subjected to torture by her husband and his family members for bringing less dowry.

She has stated that her husband tried to convince her to allow him to solemnize his second marriage and when she was not agreed then they started torturing her.

She has further stated that in due course she lodged FIR in Tatisilwai P.S. Case vide case no. 40 of 2016 against the appellant and his family members and thereafter everything became normal.

She has stated that when the divorce case was filed she was living with the appellant as husband and wife and after many days she came to know that her husband has filed the instant suit and when she requested then he stated that he will withdraw the case but in spite of that he has not withdrawn the case and then she got herself ready to contest the same.

She has stated that the allegation levelled against her in the petition is false, concocted and are baseless. She has stated that her marriage was solemnized on 6th June, 2014 and since then she is living at her Sasural and on two-three times she went to her Maika after taking permission from appellant. She has stated that relationship of husband and wife was established between them.

She has stated that she always used to give respect to her in-laws and she never tortured the appellant and his family members.

She has stated that she is less educated and her husband is an engineer and after marriage the appellant pressurized her to allow him to solemnize marriage with other girl, but when she refused then he filed this case with false allegation against her.

She has stated that since her marriage till date she is living in the house of her husband. She has stated that the allegation of her husband that her family members quarreled with him is completely false rather her family members never came to her matrimonial house.

She has stated that it is true that in initial day of marriage when her husband and in-laws tortured her for dowry then her family members came there. She denied that she has ever misbehaved with her husband and never refused to make relation with him as husband and wife and they are still living as husband and wife.

In her cross examination she has stated that she is living at her matrimonial home at Adarsh Nagar and her husband is doing job at Kolkata and at the time of marriage her husband was doing job at Chennai. She has never gone with her husband at Chennai and at Kolkata.

She has stated that she has filed a case in the year 2016 at Tatisilwai PS 40 of 2016 against her husband. She has stated that later on she came to know that her husband has filed divorce case and thereafter she lodged the case in police station.

She has stated that in absence of her husband her in-laws demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as dowry and the said demand was not fulfilled by her family members.

She has stated that their marriage was solemnized in the year 2014 but there is no issue out of the wedlock and she came to know about the instant case in the year 2016. She denied that she does not want to live with her husband. She has stated that behaviour of her husband towards her was not good and due to such ill behaviour this divorce case was filed.

She has stated that in her Sasural she used to cook food for all and sometimes she was not provided food. She has stated that she is getting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-per month. She has stated that she does not know what allegation she has levelled against her husband. She denied that her husband has filed this case due to torture committed by her.

DW-2 Vijay Shankar is the brother of respondent. He has fully supported the case of respondent in his affidavited examination-in-chief and he has stated more or less the similar version as stated by the respondent in her evidence.

In his cross-examination he has stated that his sister lodged case in Tatisilwai after two years of marriage and he has not read over the said FIR and he has no knowledge whether that case is pending or disposed of.

He has stated that presently his sister is living at Tatisilwai in the house of her father-in-law and presently he has not gone at the said house as his posting is at Katihar in Bihar Police and he came to know about the divorce case from his sister.

He has stated that the marriage of his sister was arranged marriage as per Hindu rites and rituals and at the time of marriage he stayed for one month.

He has stated that in the year 2016 the case was filed u/s 498A of IPC and at the time of filing of that case he had not gone to Police Station.

DW-3 Nutan Devi, mother of respondent, has fully supported the case of respondent in her affidavited examination in chief and she has stated more or less the similar version as stated by the respondent in her evidence.

In her cross examination she has stated that her husband has lodged a case in police station due to torture with her daughter which is pending in the court and in that case Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance was allowed to give to the respondent.

She has further stated that presently her daughter is living in her matrimonial home and she has no knowledge whether her daughter is living with her in-laws or not.

She has stated that presently she is living at Sheikhpura and she has not come to Ranchi since last five years.

No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of either of the parties.

From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is evident that the appellant-husband has been examined as P.W.1 before the Family Court, who in his deposition has mainly taken the ground of bad behaviour of his wife and constant threats of getting the family members implicated in the false cases. He has deposed that his wife has misbehaved with him as well as his family members and treated them with cruelty.

From the aforesaid testimony of the appellant-husband it is evident that though cruelty has been pleaded by him in his petition, but no cogent evidence has been produced by him to prove the allegations.

The respondent-wife has been examined as DW-1 who has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the appellant according to Hindu rites and rituals on 06.06.2014 and after marriage she went to her Sasural and she lived with her husband for few days peacefully but thereafter the behaviour of her husband and in-laws towards her was cruel and when their demand of dowry was not fulfilled, she was subjected to torture by them.

She has stated that the case has been filed by her husband against her is not true and her husband made false and concocted allegations against her and that the instant case has been filed by suppressing the material fact that at the time of filing of this case, the appellant was living with her as husband and wife in the same house.

She has further stated that it is true that after marriage she was subjected to torture by her husband and his family members for bringing less dowry.

She has stated that when the divorce case was filed, she was living with the appellant as husband and wife and after many days she came to know that her husband has filed the instant suit and when she requested to withdraw the case, then he stated that he will withdraw the case but in spite of that he has not withdrawn the case.

She has stated that the allegation levelled against her in the petition is false, concocted and are baseless.

She has stated that she is less educated and her husband is an engineer and after marriage the appellant pressurized her to allow him to solemnize marriage with other girl, but when she refused then he filed this case with false allegation against her.

She has stated that since her marriage till date she is living in the house of her husband. She has stated that the allegation of her husband that her family members quarreled with him is completely false rather her family members never came to her matrimonial house.

The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties, has come to the conclusion that appellant has miserably failed to prove the grounds of alleged cruelty pleaded by him in his petition.

From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-husband, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has come to the conclusion that in the instant case, the plaintiff/appellant has not been able to prove his case against the defendant/respondent even to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. The onus to prove the grounds taken for divorce squarely rests on the plaintiff which are required to be discharged by leading a cogent, tangible and reliable evidence.

In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decide herein that “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife U/s 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

It requires to refer herein the definition of ‘cruelty’ as has been defined by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], wherein it has been held that the Court is to enquire as to whether the charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.

The  cruelty  has  also  been  defined  in  the  case  of Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105], wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition.

According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.”

The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it is important for the Court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the “culture and human values to which they attach importance.”

The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty.

In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting cross-examination. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”.

In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his wife was “unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute “cruelty” itself.

The  Hon’ble  Apex  Court  in  Joydeep  Majumdar  v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.

The  Hon’ble  Apex  Court  in  the  case  of  Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC 21

has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses and the word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined and 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 and one which is adversely affecting the other.

Now reverting to the fact of the case It has been stated by the appellant/husband that the respondent used to quarrel and assault his mother and also used to misbehave with his sister and even she did not allow him to have sexual right over her and due to which he sustained mental pain and agony. He has further stated that on 21.06.2014 the respondent, in presence of family members of the appellant, abused him in filthy words and also assaulted him.

But at the same time in the cross-examination, he had stated that he did not make complaint anywhere regarding the occurrence and he has not mentioned the day and time of occurrence dated 21.06.2014. He has also not mentioned the name of person in whose presence the occurrence was occurred.

Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the appellant husband has not produced any cogent evidence in regard to the cruelty which has been subjected to him by the respondent/wife and he had categorically stated that he had not lodged any complainant regarding the alleged occurrence.

This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved because no cogent evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant and, as such, this Court has no reason to take different view that has been taken by the learned Family Court observing that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the defendant subjected him with cruelty to the extent required by law.

Accordingly, issue as framed by this Court is decided against the appellant-husband and it is held that the learned Family Court had rightly not granted the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as such same is requires no interference by this Court.

This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed on 24.08.2022 and decree signed on 01.09.2022 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.312 of 2015 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.