Source: https://www.shoneekapoor.com/kamlesh-kumari-vs-vinod-kumar/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:27:05+00:00

Document:
Law Point: False case registered against Husband and his family members only to settle personal scores. Attitude of appellant wife in leaving matrimonial home at her sweet will and pleasure and showing disrespectful attitude to husband and family members, without any justifiable cause is cruelty towards Husband. Parties living apart for 6-7 years, which is admitted and proved on record — Divorce granted.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge (F), Shimla dissolving the marriage between the parties to this appeal by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as pleaded by the respondent/husband.
(a) That the appellant used to leave the matrimonial home without informing the petitioner or his parents which act, she had been committing on number of occasions. To paraphrase, the incident referred to above (i) the appellant refused to cook food for the family members stating that she did not know how to cook as the mother had been doing this for her. (ii) On 8.4.2000 she left the home at night and returned only in the morning and refused to disclose her whereabouts, (iii) On 7.4.2000, the respondent had joined Army but on account of cruel behaviour of the appellant herein he was being subjected to lot of pressure and left service in October, 2000. (iv) The appellant had herself aborted twice by taking medicines/drugs provided by her mother. On 27.2.2001 when the respondent went to the house of the parents of the appellant, requested her to join company with him but she refused, (v) On 1.3.2001 when the respondent enquired from the appellant as to whether she had brought any prescription slip from the doctor, she opened her purse and threw the slip into the harth. (vi) On 3.3.2001, the appellant refused to water the cattle though her mother-in-law requested her to do so as she was not well. She threw a tantrum, throwing out the bag containing clothing, etc. and ran away from the house, (vii) On 17.3.2001, 25.3.2001, 7.4.2001 the parents of the respondent along with his father and Daya Nand, as also Vice-President Gram Panchayat Barog Dharam Parkash and Sunder Lal Verma went to the house of the appellant to bring her back but she refused to comply with the request, (viii) On 8.4.2001 she returned with reluctance but again on 7.6.2001 she fled away. It is also pleaded that she took away keys of the house and ornaments, etc. On 24.6.2001 and on other dates as detailed, same action and behaviour was resorted to by her.
(b) The second ground alleged is that a false case under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the respondent and his family members as a result they had to obtain bail as well as face trial for a period of about 3 years and ultimately they were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, Theog on 29th September, 2004 after a full-fledged trial, as such respondent and his entire family members were subjected to harassment which amounts to cruelty. This in a nutshell is the case set out by the respondent.
3. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence of the parties, concluded that it was proved on record that the appellant had left for her parental home on number of occasions without any justifiable cause or informing the petitioner, as also instituted a criminal case without any justifiable cause. The learned Court held that the acts of the appellant in isolation as well as jointly constitute cruelty justifying grant of decree for divorce as prayed for. While concluding, the Court held that the parties had been residing separately for the last more than two years before the institution of the divorce petition (petition was instituted on 11.1.2005). It rejected the explanation given by the appellant for leaving the company of the respondent without sufficient cause.
4. On the other two issues raised by the appellant herein that the respondent was estopped from filing the petition and that he suppressed material facts. The Court held that these were never urged nor argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant when the petition was taken up for arguments.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the findings of the learned Trial Court are erroneous. No cruelty has been established on the record and, therefore, the acts complained of are not covered by Section 13 of the Act. It is urged that the Trial Court has assumed the factum of animus deserendi which is not established on record. It has merely relied upon the fact that the parties have been living separately for the last more than two years before the institution of the petition, which was insufficient in law for substantiating the conclusion. One more argument was advanced that issue Nos. 3 and 4 relating to estoppel and suppression have been decided without considering the plea of the petitioner herein.
6. Adverting to the last submission, the findings of learned Trial Court cannot be disputed as the judgment itself establishes issue and plea abandonment as both these issues have not been urged and argued before the Court below. Adverting to the fact that a false criminal case having been instituted which constitutes cruelty, learned Counsel for the respondent refers to the decision of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Theog (Ex. P1) in case 159-1 of 2001, instituted on 28.8.2001 and decided on 29.9.2004 titled State of H.P. v. Vinod Kumar, Neela Dass and Kaushlya Devi being the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the appellant. The judgment narrates the facts on the basis of which prosecution was lodged. The criminal case was registered on the report of the appellant (Ex. PA) stating that she was married to the respondent one and half years ago and her husband/respondent treated her properly for some time but thereafter, all three accused started maltreating her, used to abuse her and physically assualt her. The husband even tried to kill her by inserting/jamming his thumb in her throat, but she succeeded in saving her life. The demand of dowry were raised in the month of March, 2001 when she was forced to bring a golden ring from her parental home which was handed over to the accused. But despite this fact, the ill-treatment/physical torture of the appellant continued unstated and accused also raised a demand for a car or money equivalent to its value and she was told in no uncertain terms that in case she did not do so she would be kept as a servant in the house as the respondent would be marrying again. So much so, she was threatened to be burnt alive with acid and was also asked to sign some blank papers. It is on these basis that the report was registered.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
14. Learned Counsel further placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Shri Chand Prakash Sharma v. Smt. Kaushlya Devi, I (2008) DMC 176=2008 (1) Shim.LC 198, in which a false complaint had been lodged by the wife against her husband making number of allegations. This Court has held that such an act constitutes cruelty within the meaning of the Act.
15. I may notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, II (2008) DMC 8 (SC)=V (2008) SLT 55=AIR 2008 SC 2296, which has been relied upon by learned Counsel for the respondent. He urged that the appellate Court is expected to bear in mind the findings recorded by the Trial Court on evidence before it. The Trial Court had an advantage and opportunity of seeing the demeanour of witnesses and its findings should not normally be disturbed. Though the appellate Court has ample powers/same powers as that of the original Court, but they have to be exercised with proper care, caution and circumspection.
“7. The word ‘cruelty’ and the kind of degree of ‘cruelty’ necessary which may amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined in the Act. What is cruel treatment is to a large extent a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact and no dogmatic answer can be given to the variety of problems that arise before the Court in these kinds of cases. The law has no standard by which to measure the nature and degree of cruel treatment that may satisfy the test. It may consist of a display of temperament, emotion or pervasion (sic perversion) whereby one gives vent to his or her feelings, without intending to injure the other. It need not consist of direct action against the other but may be misconduct indirectly affecting the other spouse even though it is not aimed at that spouse. It is necessary to weigh all the incidents and quarrels between the parties keeping in view the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse upon the mind of the other. Cruelty may be inferred from the facts and matrimonial relations of the parties and interaction in their daily life disclosed by the evidence and inference on the said point can only be drawn after all the facts have been taken into consideration. Where there is proof of a deliberate course of conduct on the part of one, intended to hurt and humiliate the other spouse, and such a conduct is persisted cruelty can easily be inferred. Neither actual nor presumed intention to hurt the other spouse is a necessary element in cruelty.
17. I may also notice the decision of the Delhi High Court in M.K. Malhotra v. Smt. Kirti Malhotra, I (1987) DMC 188=AIR 1987 Del. 266, holding that false complaints made by wife to the Prime Minister against husband constitutes grave acts of cruelty.
18. Similarly, a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Rakesh Sharma v. Surbhi Sharma, AIR 2002 Raj. 138, held that where the wife was repeatedly leaving the matrimonial home without the consent of the husband and not returning thereafter as also making false complaints regarding demand of dowry that he was leading an adulterous life, the acts constituted cruelty.
19. It is in the totality of the ratio of the judgments as also of the facts pleaded and proved on record that there is no denying the proposition that Samar Ghosh’s case lays down the broad guidelines for considering as to what constitutes cruelty. On the question as to whether the filing of the criminal case under Section 498 (A), IPC which resulted in the acquittal of the respondent and his family members constitutes an act of cruelty on the part of the appellant, I have no doubt in my mind that on the findings as given by the learned Trial Court that such an act does constitute cruelty calling for the intervention of the Court for dissolving the marriage. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant that she was pursuing her claim bona fide, she was helpless and it was the prosecuting agency which was duty-bound to place sufficient evidence before the Court and the manner in which the trial was conducted, I cannot accept this submission for the reason that the prosecution was launched on the application having been submitted by the appellant to the police containing specific allegations with respect to number of acts having purportedly committed by the respondent as also by his family members. It was not an incident where the prosecuting agency/police had not taken suo motu action but the specific averments made in the complaint formed and constituted the basis and core of the entire case. The complaint was specific with respect to the acts of cruelty which included physical and mental torture inflicted on the appellant viz. repeated beatings given to her, demand for gold, car or sum equivalent to the value of the car and threats that in case she and her parents did not fulfill these demands, she would be burnt alive or permanently disfigured/incapacitated with acid. By any standard, these are serious allegations. The evidence was primarily of the complainant and her family members. The judgment (Ex. PI) itself shows that the case was pending for three years and during this period, the respondent and his parents had to face criminal prosecution and live under the mental tension/trauma of a false case hanging on their head like a sword on domocles. So much so, the respondent was serving in the army and the impact on his service/carrier profile can well be imagined. There is also no denying of the fact that the respondent and his family members had to obtain bail. What clinches the entire matter are the findings of the learned Trial Court that a false case has been registered against the respondent and his family members only to settle personal scores. When considered in the light of the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent as noticed supra and coupled with the other incidents as pleaded in the petition, it has been established on record that the attitude of the appellant in leaving the matrimonial home at her sweet will and pleasure and showing disrespectful attitude to the husband and the members of his family, without any justifiable cause, I have no doubt in my mind that in isolation or in conjunction with these facts filing of a criminal case which was held to be false, the respondent has been subjected to cruelty which is actionable. The submission that the acts, complained of constituting the desertion by the husband did not constitute such course of conduct as proving animus deserendi having not been established cannot be accepted. Reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Inder Paul Singh v. Smt. Khimla Devi, 1995 (2) Shim.LC 80, does not support his contentions. The case considered by the Court was that it has to be seen whether the respondent intentionally and permanently abandoned the appellant without his consent and without reasonable cause. Even applying this principle in this case what I find is that there is no explanation or reasonable cause for leaving the matrimonial home. However, such act of desertion is not being considered in isolation but coupled with the act of the appellant herein in launching false criminal proceedings which have been held so by the learned Trial Court. I may also consider one more fact and that is that both the parties now staying apart for the last 6-7 years which fact is admitted and proved on record. In this situation, the case is clearly covered by condition Nos. (i) (ii) (iv) and (v) as set out in Para 101 of Samar Ghosh’s case. There is thus no merit in this appeal and it is rejected accordingly.
SUTAPA BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.