Case: A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur

Parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are supposed to bring about the union of souls. It creates a new relationship of love, affection care and concern between the husband and wife. According to Hindu Vedic philosophy it is sanskar - a sacrament; one of the sixteen important sacrament essential to be taken during ones lifetime. There may be physical union as a result of marriage for procreation to perpetuate the lineal progeny for ensuring spiritual salvation and performance of religious rites, but what is essential contemplated is union of two souls. Marriage is considered to be a junction of three important duties i.e. social religious and spiritual.3. This case presents a very unpleasant tale of two highly educated professionals (doctors by profession) fighting a bitter matrimonial battle.4. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the husband) and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the wife) tied nuptial knot on 10.10.1978. They were blessed with two children. Both are majors by now. The marriage was what is commonly known as love marriage. Appellant and the respondent were co-students in the medical collage. They belong to different parts of the country; the appellant-husband is a Telugu Brahmin while the respondent - wife belongs to Sikh religion. They were both working in the hospital which was established by the appellants father Dr. A. Ram Murthy. Alleged finding the behaviour of the respondent-wife obnoxious, humiliating and amounting to mental cruelty, a notice was given by the appellant-husband on 5.3.1997 seeking divorce by mutual consent to avoid unnecessary complications. It was stated therein that they had not shared the bed and there was no physical contact between them for over two years. It was indicted in the notice that the respondent had treated appellant with cruelty and her conduct amounted to desertion for two years and was, therefore, neither safe, desirable nor advisable to continue marital relationship. A response was given by respondent on 21.3.1997 denying the allegations. It was suggested that there should be a free and heart to heart discussion to sort out the problems for a harmonious married life. The aforesaid task which admittedly took place did not bring any result and ultimately a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act) was filed before Family Courts, Hyderabad. It was categorically stated therein that the behaviour and conduct of the respondent was causing immense emotional stress, mental agony, and there being no sharing of the bed and cohabitation for more than two years, prayer was made to grant decree of divorce for dissolving the marriage between the parties. It was specifically stated that the respondent has ill-treated her husband, abused him in vulgar language in the home and at the hospital and at other places thereby causing mental agony, damage and loss personally and professionally and also in the social circle; allegations were made about his character. Caveats were filed at different places with a view to forestall legal action, and create an impression of innocence. Caveats were admittedly lodged at the wrong address of the appellant. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent denying the allegations. It was stated that her bona fide acts in advising her husband to act properly and to be decent in his behaviour was misconstrued and was being projected as nagging and insulting behaviour. The petition for divorce was filed on unfounded allegations.5. At this juncture it would be relevant to note that after the petition was filed by the appellant-husband, a suit for injunction bearing OA No. 89/97 in respect of right to practise in the hospital was filed by the respondent. The said suit was not objected to by the appellant and the suit was decreed on 20.11.1997. Subsequently, an execution petition was filed praying for attachment of hospital equipments belonging to the appellant, and also for civil detention of the appellant for alleged disobedience of the order of injunction. It was categorically stated by the respondent during trial that she was not willing to withdraw the application until divorce case was finalized. An application for maintenance was also filed before the Family Court, Hyderabad, where the matter was pending claiming a sum of Rs. 13,000/- p.m., though admittedly the respondent is a professional doctor. Subsequently, another suit was filed for perpetual and mandatory injunction bearing O.S. No. 43/1999 against the appellant for allowing respondent and the staff appointed by her use of certain portion of the hospital and use of the medical instruments.6. Evidence was led by the parties. The respondent stated in her evidence that she had complete faith and trust in her husband and no doubt about his integrity and character. But at the same time, she stated that she had advised him on five counts to be discreet and decent in his behaviour. By judgment dated 18.6.2001 Family Court, Hyderabad, passed decree for judicial separation with effect from the date of the decree. Though the Family Court found that unfounded allegations which caused mental agony were made by the respondent, and her alleged acts clearly caused mental agony and mental cruelty, yet keeping in view the welfare of the children instead of decree for divorce a decree for judicial separation was felt to be more appropriate. Both the appellant and respondent challenged the judgment before the High Court. While the appellant-husband took the stand that a decree for divorce should have been passed, the respondent-wife questioned legality of the decree for judicial separation. By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the husbands appeal while allowing the wifes appeal. It was held that the materials on records were not sufficient to prove any mental cruelty. The entire evidence led by the appellant did not even emit smell of cruelty. It was noted that even if it was a fact that the respondent was using abusive language and making allegations of adultery with nursing staff, the husband ought to have examined some witnesses from the hospital and since it was not done, cruelty was not established.

Reasoning:
On reading of judgments of the trial Court and the High Court one thing is clear. While the trial Court analysed the evidence in great detail and found that the accepted stand of the respondent-wife regarding her behavior and conduct caused mental agony and amounted to mental cruelty, the High Court did not discuss the evidence at all. On the specious ground that witnesses from the hospital were not examined and, therefore, adverse inference was to be drawn. There was not even any discussion as to how the evidence led was insufficient to establish mental cruelty. The High Courts view that if at all it was a fact that respondent was using abusive language and making allegations of adultery with nursing staff, some witnesses from the hospital were necessary to be examined is clearly indefensible. That alone should not have been made the determinative factor to discard evidence on record. On that ground alone the judgment of the High Court is vulnerable. The evidence as led and which is practically undisputed is that the respondent had asked the husband to do certain things which cannot be termed to be a simple advice for proper behaviour. For example in her evidence respondent clearly accepted that she had said five things to be followed by him. Surprisingly, most of them related to ladies working in the hospital. Though respondent tried to show that they were simple and harmless advice, yet on a bare reading thereof it is clear that there were clear manifestations of her suspecting the husbands fidelity, character and reputation. By way of illustration, it may be indicated that the first so called advice was not to ask certain female staff members to come and work on off-duty hours when nobody else was available in the hospital. Second was not to work behind the closed doors with certain members of the staff. Contrary to what she had stated about having full faith in her husband the so called advices were nothing but casting doubt on the reputation, character and fidelity of her husband. Constant nagging on those aspects, certainly amounted to causing indelible mental agony and amounts to cruelty. The respondent was not an ordinary woman. She was a doctor in the hospital and knew the importance of the nature of duty and the necessity of members of the staff working even during off hours and the working conditions. There was another instance which was specifically dealt with by the trial Court. Same related to the alleged extra marital relationships of the appellant with another married lady who was wife of his friend. Though the respondent tried to explain that she was not responsible for making any such aspersions, the inevitable conclusion is to the contrary.16. The matter can be looked at from another angle. If acts subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition can be looked into to infer condonation of the aberrations, acts subsequent to the filing of the petition can be taken note of to show a pattern in the behaviour and conduct. In the instant case, after filing of the divorce petition a suit for injunction was filed, and the respondent went to the extent of seeking detention of the respondent. She filed a petition for maintenance which was also dismissed. Several caveat petitions were lodged and as noted above, with wrong address. The respondent in her evidence clearly accepted that she intended to proceed with the execution proceedings, and prayer for arrest till the divorce case was finalized. When the respondent gives priority to her profession over her husbands freedom it points unerringly at disharmony, diffusion and disintegration of marital unity, from which the Court can deduce about irretrievable breaking of marriage.Several decisions, as noted above, cited by learned counsel for the respondent to contend even if marriage has broken down irretrievably decree of divorce cannot be passed. In all these cases it has been categorically held that in extreme cases the Court can direct dissolution of marriage on the ground that the marriage broken down irretrievably as is clear from paragraph 9 of Shiv Sunders case (supra). The factual position in each of the other cases is also distinguishable. It was held that long absence of physical company cannot be a ground for divorce if the same was on account of husbands conduct. In Shiv Sunders case (supra) it was noted that the husband was leading adulterous life and he cannot take advantage of his wife shunning his company. Though the High Court held by the impugned judgment that the said case was similar, it unfortunately failed to notice the relevant factual difference in the two cases. It is true that irretrievable breaking of marriage is not one of the statutory grounds on which Court can direct dissolution of marriage, this Court has with a view to do complete justice and shorten the agony of the parties engaged in long drawn legal battle, directed in those cases dissolution of marriage. But as noted in the said cases themselves those were exceptional cases.