Sheela vs Harshwardhan

V.A. Naik, J—By this appeal, the appellant-wife challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur, dated 03/02/2012, allowing the petition filed by the respondent-husband and dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties on 18/06/2001 by a decree of divorce.

Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus -

The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married at Nagpur on 18/06/2001 as per Hindu rites and customs. In the petition filed by the husband for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, it was pleaded that after entering the matrimonial home, the wife desired that the cousin grandmother of the husband, who was more than 80 years of age and who had no issues should not stay in the matrimonial house. It was pleaded that on 29/06/2001 the parties went to Diu where the husband was posted. It was pleaded that the wife became pregnant, but since she did not wish to continue her pregnancy, there was negligence and the same resulted in miscarriage. It was pleaded that the wife always quarreled with the husband and said that her marriage was performed against her wishes. It was pleaded that after the birth of the child, the wife did not take care of the child and the husband was therefore, required to always look after the child. It was pleaded that the wife left the house and passed her time on the beach. It was pleaded that the wife abused the husband in foul and filthy language. It was pleaded that when the mother of the husband resided with them at Mumbai, where the husband was shifted, the wife behaved very rudely with her. It was pleaded that the wife had admitted in the letters issued by her to the parents of the husband that she had unnecessarily quarreled with the husband and his family members and she was guilty about her behaviour. It was pleaded that the wife was taken to Psychiatrist, Dr.Bhave on 03/10/2005 and the wife was asked to take the treatment regularly. It was pleaded that time and again the wife lodged criminal complaints in the Police Station and the husband was called by the Police. It was pleaded that the Police, on enquiry, did not find any substance in the complaint of the wife and, therefore, did not take any action against the husband and his family members. It was pleaded that a complaint was registered against the husband by the wife for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code and the husband and his family members had to approach the Sessions Court for seeking anticipatory bail. It was pleaded that due to the false complaints lodged by the wife, the reputation of the husband was spoiled and he was put to shame. It was pleaded by amending the petition that during the pendency of the petition also, the wife had filed several complaints against the husband and his family members. It was pleaded that a complaint was lodged by the wife during the pendency of the petition that the husband and his family members tried to kill her by setting her on fire by pouring kerosene. It was pleaded that the complaints were filed by the wife only with a view to lower the image of the husband in the society. It was pleaded that in the Court premises, the wife had assaulted the husband and abused him in filthy language. It was pleaded that the act of the wife slapping her husband in the Court premises was published in the newspaper along with the names of the parties. It was pleaded that the acts on the part of the wife amounted to cruelty and it was not possible for the husband to stay with the wife under one roof. The husband, therefore, sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The wife filed the written statement and denied the case of the husband. It was denied that she started harassing the husband after the marriage. The wife denied that she was not interested in bearing a child and that resulted in the miscarriage. It was denied that the wife tried to commit suicide and implicate the husband. It was pleaded that the husband had withdrawn from the company of the wife on his own accord and the wife was living at the mercy of her mother. The wife did not amend the written statement in consequence of the amendment of the petition by the husband.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed the issues and the parties tendered the evidence. The husband examined himself and also examined his sister and nephew. The wife examined herself. The parties filed certain documents on record in support of their claim. The Family Court, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the petition filed by the husband and granted a decree of divorce thereby dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties. The judgment of the Family Court is challenged in this appeal.

Ms Nisha Gajbhiye, the learned counsel for the appellant-wife, submitted that the Family Court was not justified in allowing the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce. It is submitted that mere filing of criminal complaints against the husband and his family members would not amount to cruelty. It is submitted that the statements made in the complaints were true and, therefore, the complaints were rightly filed. It is submitted that during the pendency of the first appeal, the husband has remarried on 15/05/2014 and hence, the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce, on the ground of bigamy. It is stated that the decree of the Family Court is liable to be set aside, as the husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. It is submitted that the Family Court did not consider the evidence in the right perspective while granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.

Shri Kariya, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband, supported the order of the Family Court. It is submitted that the Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence tendered by the parties to grant a decree in favour of the husband. It is submitted that the Family Court considered the letters of the wife to hold that the wife had admitted her cruel behaviour. It is submitted that even during the pendency of the petition before the Family Court, the wife had lodged several criminal complaints against the husband. It is submitted that the husband was honourably acquitted in the proceedings instituted against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. It is submitted that the wife was in the habit of filing false complaints against the husband and this fact was rightly considered by the Family Court while granting the decree of divorce. It is submitted that the wife had admitted in her evidence that a report in regard to the wife slapping the husband in the Court premises was published in the newspaper. It is submitted that the cruelty inflicted by the wife on the husband was of a very grave and serious nature and the Family Court has rightly granted a decree of divorce, thereby dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the original record and proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this first appeal.

(i) Whether the husband had succeeded in proving that the wife had treated him with cruelty?

(ii) Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce and/or whether the judgment of the Family Court needs interference?

(iii) What order?

In the instant case, though the husband had clearly amended the petition and pleaded about the various false complaints lodged by the wife during the pendency of the petition resulting in cruelty to the husband, it is necessary to note that the wife did not amend the written statement denying the amended pleadings. It was also stated in the amended pleadings by the husband that the wife had slapped the husband in the Court premises and the news about the said incident was published in the newspaper. The wife, however, did not amend the written statement to deny the grave and serious allegations that were levelled against her by the amended pleadings, in the petition. The Family Court rightly took a note of the aforesaid position and scanned the evidence tendered by the husband and the wife to hold that the evidence of the husband and his witnesses was more trustworthy and weighty. The Family Court considered that the wife had the habit of abusing her mother-in-law. Certain abuses uttered by the wife are stated in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment of the Family Court in vernacular. The Family Court considered the evidence of the husband to find that the wife had treated him with cruelty since the inception of the marriage. The Family Court relied on the evidence of the husband that was supported by the admissions of the wife in her cross-examination. The Family Court considered the letters at Exhibit-91 (collectively) written by the wife to the husband wherein she had clearly admitted her guilt. She had stated in the letters that she had harassed the husband and his family members for the past three years and she would like to mend her ways. The Family Court considered the document executed in the Police Station, Exhibit-92, wherein the wife had undertaken to behave properly, in future. The Family Court found that the wife had lodged several complaints against the husband even during the pendency of the petition. Though 7 to 8 criminal complaints were lodged against the husband, the Police had refused to take action on the complaints, as they did not find any truth in the same. The Family Court found that the husband had proved by his evidence that the wife had treated him with cruelty and his evidence was also supported by the evidence of his witnesses. The admissions of the wife in respect of her mistakes and the harassment and trouble which she has given her in-laws, as admitted in the letters, has been considered by the Family Court in paragraph No. 25 of the judgment. The Family Court found that the wife had admitted that she had written the letters at Exhibit-91 to her husband and that the news about her slapping her husband in the Court premises was published in the newspaper. The Family Court found on a perusal of the evidence on record and also on an appreciation of the cases of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the various High Courts that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. The Family Court also considered that the wife admitted in her evidence that she went to the workplace of the husband and informed the employees that the husband had remarried without there being any proof of remarriage at the relevant time. We do not find any error in the appreciation of evidence by the Family Court. The Family Court had considered the evidence in the right perspective and had rightly come to the conclusion that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty and it was not possible for the husband to stay with the wife under one roof. The Family Court considered that the husband was acquitted in the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. We do not find any error whatsoever in the judgment of the Family Court so as to interfere with the same in the first appeal. There is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that lodging of criminal complaints would not tantamount to cruelty. Lodging of false criminal complaints against the husband and in-laws would surely result in cruelty to the husband and his family members. In the instant case, the amended pleadings in regard to the lodging of more than half a dozen false complaints in various Police Stations against the husband have not been denied by the wife by amending the written statement. It is well settled that the facts which are not specifically traversed in the written statement are deemed to have been admitted. Even otherwise, it is clear from the undertaking given by the wife in the Police Station and also from her letters issued to her husband and her in-laws that she was at fault and she had ill treated the husband and his family members. The submission made on behalf of the wife that the husband has remarried during the pendency of this first appeal and hence, the husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong is liable to be rejected. The first appeal was admitted on 27/03/2012. The same was dismissed in default on 14/03/2014. The first appeal was restored on 10/04/2015. The husband had married on 15/05/2014 when the appeal was not subsisting. The husband, therefore, cannot be blamed for the remarriage. In any case, the question could not be relevant for deciding the issue involved in this first appeal, specially when there is voluminous material on record to show that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty of grave and serious nature.

For the reasons aforesaid, the first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.