MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Divorce postulated to father – Cruelty by wife

DELHI HIGH COURT

Bench: JUSTICE Leila Seth

URMILA DEVI

Vs.

DEVINDER KUMAR PARCHA

On 8 Dec 1982

Law Point:
Husband’s petition for retraction of Marriage overdue to wife’s cruelty — Wife seeking father to live alone due to hurt of her mother-in-law — Wife essay letters to father melancholy him to insult in his bureau and in front of his superiors that be would not forget it for a rest of his life — Intemperate denunciation used — Referring to a father as a incarnation of “Ravana” — Calling him a chairman of meant genius and inexpensive impression — Making unsubstantiated allegations per unlawful relationship. Wife guilty of a matrimonial corruption of cruelty.

JUDGEMENT

This is a wife’s interest opposite a visualisation and order, antiquated 7th July, 1982, upheld by Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional District Judge, Delhi in H.M.A. Case No. 113 of 1981, dissolving a matrimony of a parties underneath Section 13(1)(ia) of a Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (to be referred in brief as “the Act”).

2. These are a contribution Ms. Urmila Devi, a appellant and Mr. Devinder Kumar, a respondent, were married on 3rd May, 1977 during Delhi. The matrimony was solemnized in suitability with a Hindu eremite rites. After marriage, a parties resided during Shahdara.

2A. On 23rd March, 1978, Urmila Devi grown some abdominal pain and Devinder Kumar took her to Safdarjung Hospital. It appears, that she was profound and through or aborted there on a same day. On 24th March, 1978, she was liberated from a hospital.

3. According to Devinder Kumar, he wanted to pierce her home from a hospital, yet she insisted on going to her father’s residence during Moti Bagh. In a circumstances, he left her there. He sensitive her relatives that he would lapse within a few days and take her back. But they exclaimed that they would not send her behind to such a meant family and he should not come to their house.

4. However, on 26th March, 1978, accompanied by his brother-in-law (sister’s husband), Ram Lal, he went to fetch Urmila Devi from her parent’s house. Both of them were angry and she did not return. He went once again in a initial week of April, 1978 yet she refused to lapse with him.

5. His relatives and neighbours also approached Urmila Devi and her father to send her behind yet her father settled that he would not send her during any cost. He, also, wrote a minute yet to no avail.

In fact, in her letters she privately settled that she would not live with him. She used tainted and aroused denunciation in these letters. She had misbehaved with his family and had been quarrelling with him from a pregnancy of a matrimony and was insisting on vital alone from his parents. She also had a termination opposite his wishes.

6. However, Urmila Devi’s chronicle is, that she conjunction misbehaved with Devinder Kumar nor any other member of his family nor did she ask him to live alone from his parents. According to her, Devinder Kumar’s mom and sister did not like her as she had not brought adequate dowry. She asserts that these ladies treated her with adore and love in a participation Devinder Kumar yet ill-treated her as shortly as he left for office.

See also  498A Conviction set aside. Courts have to be careful to see whether the accusations are true or aimed at false implication

7. On 23rd March, 1978, she had to be approved on Safdarjung Hospital during about 4 p.m., as she was indisposed as a outcome of a violence by her mother-in-law. A teenager operation was achieved and a foetus aborted. Thereafter, she was liberated subsequent day. She was, then, deposited in a residence of her parents. Despite promises, Devinder Kumar did not come to fetch her possibly on 26th March, 1978 or on any other date, yet she was prepared and peaceful to go and live with him. As such, she went to his residence yet her mother-in-law would not let her in. She waited compartment evening, when Devinder Kumar returned, yet he also asked her to leave.

8. On 7th April, 1981, Devinder Kumar filed a petition for divorce. He prayed for a retraction of a matrimony both on a belligerent of cruelty as also desertion.

9. After deliberation a evidence, a hearing court, came to a end that no animus deserendi on a partial of Urmila Devi had been proved. In a circumstances, it reason that abandonment had not been established. However, a justice was of a opinion that a belligerent of cruelty had been established. In a result, as already beheld above, a direct of divorce had been granted.

10. In entrance to this conclusion, a hearing justice generally relied on 3 letters admittedly created by Urmila Devi to Devinder Kumar. These are exhibits P1 to P3. The justice opined that a letters were aroused in nature, created in unwashed denunciation and clearly indicated that Urmila Devi had refused to return; this amounted to treating Devinder Kumar with cruelty as it caused him mental anguish.

11. Mr. R.D. Upadhaya, schooled warn appearing for a appellant, contends that a hearing justice has erred in reading certain portions of a letters out of context and as a outcome wrongly resolved that cruelty has been established.

It is, therefore, required to inspect a outcome of these letters, as also a other allegations of cruelty.

12. The initial claim with courtesy to cruelty, is that right from a start Urmila Devi insisted on vital alone from Devinder Kumar’s parents. Though, this avowal has been finished by Devinder Kumar in his deposition, no other declare has advanced this statement. The subsequent claim is that Urmila Devi had an termination opposite his wishes. This, too, is upheld usually by his solitary statement. Urmila Devi has denied both a above assertions in her justification on 7th April, 1982 in court. So, there is matter opposite statement. But in her deposition before a Metropolitan Magistrate, Ext. P4 antiquated 17th October, 1981; she has approved that she requested Devinder Kumar to live separately.

13. With courtesy to a doubt of abortion, no medical justification has been constructed by possibly side to uphold their vension. But, as a responsibility was on Devinder Kumar to settle a allegation, and he has not been means to do so, it is not probable to reason that Urmila Devi willingly aborted a foetus opposite his wishes.

14. we turn, next, to a letters Exts P1 to P3 as also a matter of Urmila Devi, Ext. P4. This is a approved duplicate of her deposition antiquated 17th October, 1981 in a justice of Mr. S.L. Chopra, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in a upkeep record underneath Section 125 of a Code of Criminal Procedure.

See also  Husband acquitted in Domestic Violence case

15. Ext. P1 is a minute (undated) created by Urmila Devi to Devinder Kumar. The outcome of a letter, detached from seeking Devinder Kumar to lapse a box belonging to Manju, is to a effect, that she does not intend to lapse to Shahdara even if she is approached by a President of India instead of Bimla Passi. She asserts that Devinder Kumar has no comprehension and she has no goal of vital with him unless he mends his ways.

16. The subsequent minute Ext. P2 is a somewhat longer one. It is also undated. In it she refers to their past attribute and her humiliation. She asks him to arrange out things for himself and adopt a march of movement he considers best. She specifically asks him, if he has seen his face in a mirror, and, if he has, then, he would see that his coming has been totally spoilt (“Tumhari Shakal Par Barah Baze Hua Hai”). She pities him and requests him to act in a essential manner. However, she does not wish to be uneasy nor does she wish any altercation. She berates him for not holding caring of her during her illness.

17. She goes on to state that she never suspicion that he would be so meant and selfish. She asserts that notwithstanding his trusting coming he is really intelligent and should put his smarts in order. She further, asserts, that yet he has indicted her of undergoing an abortion, in fact, he contingency have had many abortions finished before matrimony and that is since such thoughts have crept in. She states that she hates him and calls him a unwashed chairman with a inexpensive genius and an incarnation of “Ravana”.

18. The subsequent letter, Ext. P3, is also undated. In this, Urmila Devi complains about Devinder Kumar’s relatives instigating him opposite her and ruining her life. She scolds him for being shabby by immorality spirits and denying that she is his wife. She complains that his mom came and indicted her in a participation of her brother, of carrying a wanderlust. She definitely states that she does not wish to step into a residence where a daughter-in-law is not honoured; generally as she is utterly confident with her benefaction impression of vital with her parents; she gets food but operative and enjoys sound sleep; no one dictates terms to her nor does she humour any discomfort.

19. She goes on to supplement that if he does not act scrupulously she will come to a station, where he works, and insult him roundly in a participation of his superiors, in an unforgetable manner. She refers to him as a chairman who prefers aroused control and does not interpretation gentleness. She tells him that he will usually learn how to pierce about in multitude when he has been kicked and knocked about.

20. The subsequent request is Ext. P4. It is her deposition before a Metropolitan Magistrate in a upkeep proceedings. She states there that Devinder Kumar was a reservation clerk in a Railways earning a income of Rs. 750/-per month. She accuses him of carrying unlawful attribute with a lady called Kamla. She admits carrying created a minute to Kamla, in that she concluded to give him divorce supposing she was paid Rs. 80,000/-. She also admits that she requested Devinder Kumar to apart from his family, as there was no assent in a family home.

See also  Divorce : Demanding separate house without cause amounts to cruelty

21. In perspective of this progressing matter of Urmila Devi, that corroborates a matter of Devinder Kumar in court, it is clear, that Urmila Devi had requested Devinder Kumar to live alone from his parents. But, for a mom to ask her father to live alone from his parents, since there is some con between her and her mother-in-law, would not per se volume to cruelty.

22. However, from a justification of Ram Kumar, P.W.4, a co-worker of Devinder Kumar, it is apparent that Urmila Devi used to go to Devinder Kumar’s bureau and speak to a womanlike staff as also some other railway employees. As such, a hazard reason out to him in her minute Ext. P3, that she would insult him in his bureau and in front of his superiors in such a demeanour that he would not forget it for a rest of his life, does not seem to be only a fatuous comment. Further, a unstinting denunciation used by her in her letters is not what is routinely approaching between a mom and husband. Refering to a father as a incarnation of “Ravana”, job him a chairman of meant genius and shout character, creation unsubstantiated allegations per unlawful relationship, is positively disgusting and aroused conduct. It can't be taken as a normal wear and rip of marriage. The accumulative outcome of a resources would prove an comprehensive drop of certainty between a parties. The vicious control consists of a complaints, accusations, insults, abuses, taunts and unstinting denunciation as reflected in these letters and Ext. P4. One can't design a associate to pretty continue this treatment.

23. It would, therefore, seem to me that a anticipating of a hearing justice was justified, on a reading of a letters as a whole cumulatively.

24. In perspective of my opinion that in a contribution and resources of a case, a anticipating of a hearing justice with courtesy to cruelty contingency be confirmed, it is not required for me to cruise a row of Mr. Jagat Singh, schooled warn for a respondent. This row is to a effect, that should we interpretation that cruelty is not established, then, a respondent is in any case, on a facts, entitled to a direct of divorce on a belligerent of desertion, notwithstanding his not filing a cross-objection in this Court. Mr. R.D. Uphadaya vehemently contests this proposition. As already noticed, we do not intend to distend on this aspect of a matter, as a respondent is entitled to a direct of retraction on a belligerent of cruelty.

25. In a outcome and for a reasons summarized above, a interest is discharged and a direct of divorce postulated underneath Section 13(1)(ia) of a Act is confirmed. However, in a contribution and resources of a case, we make no orders as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  498a Mental Cruelty - Divorce , Maintenance of child
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation