Sou. Vaishali vs Shailendra

V.A. Naik, J—By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant-wife challenges the judgment of the Family Court, dated 30/07/2014, allowing the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

Few facts giving rise to the appeal are stated thus --

"The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 04/06/2000 at Nagpur and a daughter was born from the wedlock. It is the case of the husband in the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce that the wife had withdrawn the company of the husband without any reasonable cause on 30/05/2002. It is pleaded that the wife was in the habit of filing false complaints against the husband and had lodged a false complaint against the husband and his parents in May, 2002 as a result of which, the husband suffered great mental trauma. It is pleaded that the complaint was filed by the wife with a view to lower the image of the husband and his family without any cause. It is pleaded that since the inception of the marriage, the wife quarreled with the husband. It is pleaded that on the first day of the marriage, the wife disclosed to the husband that she had not desired to marry him, but she had married him under the pressure of her parents. It is pleaded that there was a quarrel on the first day of the marriage in respect of the gift articles, as the mother of the wife desired to keep some gift articles with herself, specifically a cupboard and some other valuable articles. It is pleaded that in the Pahunchar party which took place on the next day of the marriage, the mother of the wife insulted the husband and his family members and abused them in filthy language. It is pleaded that the brother of the wife had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for his admission and on the refusal by the husband to pay the amount, the wife quarreled with him. It is pleaded that the mother of the wife used to taunt the husband by saying that he was a beggar son-in-law. It is pleaded that on 31/05/2002, the wife went out of the house on the pretext that she wanted to telephonically call her mother but went to the Police Station and filed a false complaint against the husband and his parents. It is stated that the wife had falsely stated in the complaint that the parents of the husband had tried to kill the wife by pouring kerosene on her. It is pleaded that the wife had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, but the same was withdrawn after the wife realized that she would not be able to succeed. It is pleaded that there was a mention in the application filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the husband and his family members had tried to kill her by handing her to the ceiling fan. It is pleaded that the wife brought a morcha of about 400 to 500 people and the mob shouted slogans against the husband and his family members in front of his house. It is pleaded that the husband and his family members were harassed for 3-4 days after the morcha was brought. On the aforesaid pleadings, the husband sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty."

The wife filed her written statement and denied the claim of the husband. The wife denied that she had left the company of the husband without reasonable cause. It was admitted by the wife that there was some misunderstanding between the two families in respect of the articles received by the husband and the wife during the marriage ceremony. The wife admitted that some untoward incidents occurred in the Pahunchar party because of the misunderstanding between the family members from the side of the husband and the wife. The wife admitted that she had filed a complaint against the husband in the Police station and also annexed the copy of the complaint along with the written statement. The wife denied that she was not preparing food. The wife denied that her brother had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for his admission from the husband. The wife also denied that the husband was humiliated before his colleagues in his office, by the wife. The wife, however, did not deny that a morcha of about 400 to 500 people was brought in front of the house of the husband and the mob shouted some slogans. The wife also did not deny that in the proceedings filed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she had pleaded that on 02/10/2007 the husband and his mother had tried to kill her by hanging her to a ceiling fan, but she succeeded in escaping. The wife did not deny that she went to the Police Station on 31/05/2002 and falsely alleged in the complaint that the parents of the husband tried to kill her by pouring kerosene on her. The wife also did not deny that the petition filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn by her because she became aware that she would not succeed, in the same. The wife sought for the dismissal of the petition filed by the husband.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed the issues. The husband examined himself and also examined his neighbour Smt. Surekha and his mother Smt. Suman. The wife examined herself and closed the evidence on her side. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Family Court, by the judgment, dated 30/07/2014, allowed the petition filed by the husband thereby dissolving the marriage, solemnized between the parties on 04/06/2000. The judgment of the Family Court is challenged by the wife in this Family Court Appeal.

Shri Sadavarte, the learned counsel for the appellant-wife, submitted that the Family Court ought not have allowed the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce. It is submitted that the wife had withdrawn the petition filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights on the plea that the husband would accept her as his wife in the matrimonial home. It is stated that the wife had drafted the written statement on her own and, therefore, she had not specifically denied some of the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the offence registered against the husband in furtherance of the complaint filed by the wife on 13/05/2002 being a non-cognizable offence, the husband was not entitled to seek divorce by pleading that the filing of the complaint by the wife amounted to cruelty. It is submitted that the Family Court did not consider the evidence in the right perspective before allowing the petition filed by the husband. It is fairly admitted by the counsel for the wife that there is no specific denial in respect of several allegations made by the husband against the wife in the petition filed by him. It is submitted that in the interest of the child that is born from the wedlock, this Court may consider reversing the judgment of the Family Court and dismissing the petition filed by the husband.

Shri Kariya, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband, submitted that in the absence of any denial to the material pleadings in the petition filed by the husband, the Family Court rightly held that the pleadings made by the husband were proved and the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. It is stated that the wife had not denied that she had lodged a false complaint against the husband on 13/05/2002 and an offence was registered against the husband on the basis of the complaint, which caused great mental stress and trauma to the husband. It is submitted that though the Family Court has rejected the case of the husband that the wife had brought a morcha of about 400 to 500 people in front of the house of the husband and the mob was shouting slogans against the family of the husband, the reasons recorded by the Family Court for disbelieving the case are not worthy of acceptance. It is submitted that the husband has proved by pointing out from the pleadings in the application filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she had made a false complaint that the husband and his mother tried to kill her by hanging and this aspect has rightly been considered by the Family Court to hold that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. It is stated that the wife was in the habit of making false complaints against the husband and his family members and was also in the habit of quarrelling with him for no reason. It is stated that the acts on the part of the wife have caused great mental trauma to the husband and since it was not possible for the husband to live with the wife in the matrimonial home under one roof, the Family Court has rightly granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.

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 Family Court Appeal --

"(I) Whether the husband proves that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty?

(II) Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty?

(III) What order?"

To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings of the parties and the evidence tendered by them. We have minutely perused the record and proceedings. It would not be necessary to reiterate the pleadings of the parties, as we have already narrated the pleadings in the earlier part of the judgment. The husband has examined himself and also examined his mother and his next door neighbour to prove his case. The husband has reiterated the statements made in the petition in his examination-in-chief. The husband was cross-examined from the side of the wife, but there is nothing in the cross-examination of the husband to disbelieve his case in his examination-in-chief. It is necessary to note that the material facts pleaded by the husband to prove the cruelty on the part of the wife have not been specifically denied by the wife. The wife has not denied that she had filed a false complaint against the husband and his family members on 13/05/2002 and an offence has been registered against the husband on the basis of the complaint. It is also not disputed by the wife that in the pahunchar party there were some differences between the parties and the family members of the husband and the wife. It is not disputed that there were some differences and quarrels between the members of the family of the husband and the wife in the marriage ceremony in respect of the articles received by the husband and the wife during the marriage. The wife has also not disputed that she had filed the proceedings against the husband for restitution of conjugal rights and had withdrawn the same, as she became aware that she could not have succeeded in seeking the decree. The wife has also not denied that she and her parents had taken out a morcha of about 400 to 500 people in front of the house of the husband and the mob was shouting slogans against the husband and his family members. The wife has also not specifically denied that she had lodged some complaints against the husband and his family members in the Police station. The wife also did not deny that she had made a false statement in the proceedings filed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the husband and his mother tried to hang the wife to a ceiling fan and kill her. The Family Court has held and rightly so that the aforesaid facts were proved by the husband, as they were not denied by the wife. The aforesaid facts, if not denied, would be considered to be admitted. The Family Court has, therefore, rightly held that the aforesaid facts were admitted by the wife and the husband has, therefore, been successful in proving most of the aforesaid facts. The Family Court has held that the wife had lodged the false complaint against the husband in May, 2002 as a result of which an offence was registered against the husband. The Family Court has held that the wife has inflicted cruelty on her husband by falsely stating in the petition filed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the husband and his mother had tried to kill her by hanging her to ceiling fan. The Family Court held that certain facts were not proved by the husband though the wife had not specifically denied the same. We do not agree with the observations made by the Family Court in that regard. The Family Court has unnecessarily rejected the case of the husband that the wife and her family members brought a morcha of about 400 to 500 people in front of the house of the husband and the mob was shouting slogans against the husband and his family members. Firstly, the pleadings of the husband in this regard have not been denied by the wife. Secondly, the husband, his mother and the independent witness i.e. his neighbour have deposed in respect of this incident. The Family Court has unnecessarily discarded the evidence of the husband and his witnesses on this aspect on the ground that there were some contradictions in the evidence of the husband, his mother and the neighbour in respect of the number of persons present in the morcha. The Family court could not have rejected the case of the husband in respect of the morcha only on the basis of some inconsequential contradictions. There was no contradiction in respect of the material fact that a morcha was brought to the house of the husband by the wife and her family members and the mob was shouting slogans against the husband and his family members. Merely because the actual slogans were not mentioned in the pleadings, the Family Court could not have discarded the case of the husband in this regard. This is a case where the pleadings of the husband on the material facts were not disputed by the wife, and the said facts were therefore, deemed to be admitted. Though the filing of the false complaint was admitted by the wife in her written statement, the wife stated in her cross-examination that she had not lodged a complaint against the husband or his family members that they had tried to kill her. The wife, however, admitted in her cross examination that she had lodged the complaint because despite the amicable settlement between the parties the husband refused to accept her in the matrimonial home. The wife denied in her cross examination that a morcha was taken to the house of the husband and the mob was shouting slogans against the husband and his family members. We have already recorded herein above that the wife had not disputed the said fact in her written statement. On a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Family Court rightly came to a conclusion that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty, and it was not possible for the husband to reside with the wife in the matrimonial home. While holding so, the Family Court rightly considered that the wife had not denied the allegations levelled by the husband in her written statement. We find on a reading of the evidence on record that the wife was in the habit of lodging false complaints against the husband and making reckless allegations against him. The wife had not disputed that she had made a false statement in the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the husband and his mother had tried to kill her by hanging. The Family Court found that the case of the husband that complaints made by the wife against him were false and baseless and was proved on the basis of the evidence. The unsubstantiated allegations made by the wife against the husband, according to the Family Court, amounted to cruelty. The findings recorded by the Family Court are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. There is no scope for interference with the said findings in the appeal filed by the wife.

In the result, the Family Court Appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.