MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

False allegations of unlawful family with Bhabhi is cruelty: Delhi HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23.02.2018
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 2/2018, CM Nos. 64/2018 (stay), 65/2018 (Exemption)and CM No. 66/2018 (Condonation of check in filing a appeal)

S. ….. Appellant
Through: Mr Imran Ali and Mr Johar Adeeb,Advs.
versus
M.K. ….. Respondent
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (Oral)

1. The benefaction interest has been filed underneath Section 19 of a Family Courts Act, 1984, impugning a visualisation antiquated 31.10.2017, whereby a matrimony between a parties was dissolved on a belligerent of cruelty being committed by a appellant/wife.

2. The certified contribution of a box are that a matrimony between a appellant/wife and a respondent/husband was solemnized on 11.07.2008 during Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After realisation of a marriage, a masculine child, namely, Samesth was innate out of a nuptials on 10.03.2010.

3. The petition for divorce on a belligerent of cruelty was filed by a father opposite a wife. His contentions were that her poise was cruel, she never paid courtesy to a domicile chores and refused to perform any work; that she also used to collect adult quarrels with him and his mom and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) nonetheless she was always treated with adore and adore by them and his brother. She wanted him to spin out his family members from a residence on a belligerent that a residence belonged to her husband. He had also contended that she had threatened to dedicate self-murder and used to go to her parental home yet informing him; that she always used to contend that “mai tumahri naukrani nahi hoon”; that she had also abused him and his family members with dirty denunciation and also used to bluster him and his family members to implicate them in a fake dowry case.

4. He serve contended that she was in a robe of picking adult argue yet any rhyme and reason and on 15.09.2009, she quarreled with him and when he attempted to soften her, she threatened to dedicate self-murder also melancholy that she had already combined a self-murder note in that she had concerned him and his family members, as persons obliged for her suicide. He has averred that on 25.04.2010, in a birthday celebration of their child, notwithstanding a invitation extended to a family of a wife, usually her brothers, namely, Tarun and Pramod attended a birthday celebration and even in their presence, she had quarreled with him and threatened to learn a doctrine to him and his family members. In a petition, a father contended that he wanted to go on devout debate to Madhya Pradesh on 14.07.2010, yet she combined a stage and did not concede him to go and threatened to divorce him if he dares to go. On 15.10.2010, when his mom and Bhabhi had left to attend a Jagran, she quarreled and manhandled him and he had to call a PCR during 11.15 PM. The Police reached during a residence and even in their presence, she threatened to get a fake dowry box purebred opposite him and his family members. She went to her parental home and on 06.11.2010 when she wanted to lapse to matrimonial home, she called him seeking to take her behind to a matrimonial home from her parental home; and she refused to cruise his ask to ask her hermit to dump her. Upon this, she got mad and leveled fake allegations of burglary on his mom and hermit and claiming that they had private certain articles from her house. She had again picked adult argue on 02.01.2011 on a tiny emanate of holding caring of a child and sealed herself in a room and threatened to dedicate suicide. When notwithstanding steady requests, she refused to open a door, he called a Police. It was Police, who got a doorway non-stop and took them to Police Station. Thereafter, from that day, i.e., 02.01.2011, she started staying in a detached room and refused to perform a marital obligations. The husband, on these contentions, had sought divorce on a belligerent of cruelty.

5. In a combined statement, a appellant/wife has denied all a averments in a petition for divorce. She had purported that she was not treated with adore and adore and abuses were hurled on her for no reason. She had also averred that postulant had unlawful relations. She had serve contended that a father and his family members had treated her badly and attempted to get excuses for their unlawful family and misdeeds. Since she had objected to her husband’s unlawful attribute with his Bhabhi they had all assimilated hands to get absolved of her. She averred that she is a well-educated lady, knows her dignity, selfrespect and is also wakeful of her duties towards her father and family members, yet she was treated as a lassie servant. She had denied that she mostly threatened to dedicate self-murder or record fake cases opposite a father or his family members. She has privately denied a occurrence of 20.04.2009, 15.09.2009 and 25.04.2010. She had serve averred that on 15.10.2010, it was she who had called a Police and a Police had staid a matter by conversing a father and advising him to take caring of his mom and teenager son instead of holding side of Bhabhi and elder brother, etc. She contends that it was on that day that she came to know for a initial time about a unlawful family of her father with his Bhabhi.

6. On these pleadings of a parties, on 03.08.2011, a schooled Family Judge had framed a following issues:-

“1. Whether a respondent after a solemnization of
marriage has treated a postulant with cruelty? OPP
2. Relief.”

7. The record shows that a father has examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited matrimony label as Ex.PW-1/1; photographs of matrimony as EX.PW-1/2-4 (colly); duplicate of censure done by him to SHO PS R.K. Puram as Ex.PW-1/5; duplicate of censure antiquated 29.10.2010 as Ex.PW-1/6; duplicate of journal announcement as Ex.PW1/7; duplicate of censure antiquated 24.02.2011 as Ex.PW-1/8; duplicate of censure antiquated 16.06.2011 as Ex.PW-1/9.

See also  When plea of adverse possession is not proved?

8. The appellant/wife also examined herself as RW-1 and valid on record a matrimony photographs, matrimony label and duplicate of birth certificate of teenager son as Ex.RW-1/1, RW-1/2 and RW-1/3, list of dowry articles/stridhan as Ex.RW-1/4 (colly); duplicate of R.C. of automobile and sketch as Ex.RW-1/5 (colly); duplicate of grant book of respondent’s mom as Ex.RW-1/6; leave record of respondent as Ex.RW-1/7; duplicate of RTI respond antiquated 03.06.2014 along with compensate trip of April, 2014 and medical leave as Ex.RW-1/8 (colly); photographs of respondent’s hermit in-laws’ matrimony as Ex.RW-1/9 (colly); duplicate of censure antiquated 23.03.2011 as Ex.RW-1/11 (colly); strange bills per to upkeep of car, BSES bill, Delhi Jal Board, propagandize price bills etc. as Ex.RW-1/12; medical bills during 2011-2012 is Ex.RW-1/13 (colly). She had also examined in support of her case, her uncle Shri Om Prakash as RW-2.

9. After examining a evidences on record, a Family Court, on a basement of evidences on record, resolved that a father has successfully valid a occurrence of 02.01.2011. The applicable paragraphs are reproduced as under:-

“42. The postulant has also pleaded and deposed that
on 02.01.2011, respondent bolted herself inside the
room and threatened a postulant to dedicate suicide.
The respondent did not open a room notwithstanding the
requests of a petitioner, due to that military was
called and military got non-stop a door.

44. The respondent has so not doubtful that she tried
to dedicate self-murder by handing herself with her chunni
on 15.09.2009 and threatened a postulant to
implicate him. She has also not doubtful that she
bolted herself in a room on 02.01.2011 and
threatened a postulant to dedicate suicide. The
petitioner has so duly valid on record these facts
against a respondent.”

10. As regards a other contentions of a father that on 15.10.2010, an rumpus had occurred between him and a appellant in a deficiency of his mom and brother, during that she had also manhandled him and a Police was called and a mom threatened for removing fake box purebred opposite him, a schooled Family Judge has hold as under:-

“46. The postulant has reiterated a pronounced defence in
para 18 of his hearing in chief. The respondent
has entirely cross-examined a postulant yet his
testimony per above defence has remained
uncontroverted. The respondent has not carried out
any interrogate of PW-1 in this aspect. In the
absence of any cross-examination, a respondent has
deemed to have certified a above plea.”

11. The schooled Family Judge also hold as under:-
“47. The postulant has also done various
specific allegations of cruelty opposite a respondent in
his petition. He also reiterated these allegations in his
deposition. The respondent has extensively crossexamined
and postulant yet his testimony has
remained unhampered and postulant has successfully
passed a poison exam of cross-examination”.

12. The schooled Family Judge has also celebrated that a mom had taken a defence in her combined matter that a father and his family members were perplexing to get “excuses for their unlawful family and deeds and misdeeds” and had also remarkable a averments of a mom in para 4c of a combined matter to a outcome that they had connived with any other to get absolved of a mom “who is objecting to unlawful family of a postulant with his Bhabhi ” and also her averment that “no mom shall ever concede her father be common by anyone else physically, socially and financially.” The Family Judge has also remarkable a averments done in para 4n of a combined matter done by a appellant that on 15.10.2010, when a Police amicably staid a matter, she came to know that “it was a initial day when a respondent came to know about a unlawful family of a postulant with his Bhabhi”. The schooled Family Judge has celebrated that notwithstanding creation such critical allegations in a combined statement, a mom has not led any justification to infer these allegations. The schooled Family Judge has hold as under:-

“53. The respondent yet leveled these serious
allegation opposite postulant in her combined statement.

But a respondent has not done even a wheeze of
above allegations in her deposition. The above
allegations leveled by a respondent per the
illicit family of postulant and his sister-in-law
(Bhabhi) in WS has not been substantiated by her as
she has not done a singular averment in her deposition
in this courtesy nor she has led any other justification to
substantiate a pronounced allegation.”

13. Thereafter, relying on a commentary of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate AIR 2003 SC 2462, a schooled Family Judge has hold that such forward and bald allegations yet any reasoning proof, itself amounts to gravest form of mental cruelty and hold that a father has succeeded in proof that a mom had committed cruelty on him of such a inlet that endangers his life and it was not probable for him to continue to live in a attribute and thereby dissolved their marriage.

14. The mom has impugned a pronounced visualisation on several grounds. It is argued that a schooled Family Judge has erred in appreciating a justification that a petition filed by a respondent/husband was formed on fake and concocted facts; that a schooled Family Judge has unsuccessful to conclude a evidences rightly and also unsuccessful to keep in mind that there is a 7 year aged son and a respondent can't run divided from his shortcoming of a father. The appellant has serve staid that she is a housewife and has no means to say her. It is serve contended that a impugned sequence is bad in law given a weight to infer a cruelty was on a respondent that he had unsuccessful to discharge. On these contentions, it is submitted that a impugned sequence be set aside.

15. We have given courteous care to a contentions of a parties.

16. The respondent had filed a petition for divorce underneath Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as a ‘said Act’ on a belligerent of cruelty. In a pronounced Act, a countenance ‘cruelty’ is not defined. However, a countenance of ‘cruelty’ vis-à-vis a matrimonial obligations and duties has been elaborately discussed and defined.

See also  Deceased employee sister is entitled to get family pension

17. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105, a Supreme Court has hold that a countenance “treated a postulant with cruelty” as used in Section 13(1)(ia) of a pronounced Act is used in propinquity to tellurian control or tellurian behaviour. It is a control in propinquity to or in honour of matrimonial duties and obligations. The Supreme Court had serve celebrated that “cruelty might be mental or physical, conscious or unintentional.” It is not formidable to establish a earthy cruelty. However, a integrity of mental cruelty poses a difficulty. The Court celebrated as under:-

“4. …If it is mental a problem presents difficulty. First,
the enquiry contingency start as to a inlet of a cruel
treatment. Second, a impact of such diagnosis on the
mind of a spouse. Whether it caused reasonable
apprehension that it would be damaging or damaging to live
with a other. Ultimately, it is a matter of deduction to be
drawn by holding into comment a inlet of a conduct
and a outcome on a angry spouse….”

18. The Court also celebrated as under:-

“5. ..The cruelty purported might mostly count on the
type of life a parties are accustomed to or their
economic and amicable conditions. It might also count upon
their enlightenment and tellurian values to that they attach
importance. We, a judges and lawyers, therefore,
should not import a possess notions of life. We might not go
in together with them. There might be a era gap
between us and a parties…”

19. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 , a Apex Court has hold that mental cruelty is outcome of “conducts that inflicts on a other celebration such mental pain and pang as would make it not probable for that celebration to live with a other.” The Court had serve celebrated as under:-

“16. ….In other words, mental cruelty contingency be of such a
nature that a parties can't pretty be approaching to
live together. The conditions contingency be such that a wronged
party can't pretty be asked to put adult with such
conduct and continue to live with a other party. It is not
necessary to infer that a mental cruelty is such as to
cause damage to a health of a petitioner. While arriving
at such conclusion, courtesy contingency be had to a social
status, educational turn of a parties, a multitude they
move in, a probability or differently of a parties ever
living together in box they are already vital detached and
all other applicable contribution and resources that it is
neither probable nor fascinating to set out exhaustively.
What is cruelty in one box might not volume to cruelty in
another case. It is a matter to be dynamic in any case
having courtesy to a contribution and resources of that case.
If it is a box of accusations and allegations, courtesy must
also be had to a context in that they were made.”

20. In Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706, a Supreme Court in para 21 of a visualisation has again reiterated that a cruelty has to be guarded from a poise of one associate towards a other and where a poise is of such a inlet that causes reasonable confinement in a minds of a latter, about his or her reserve to continue in a attribute with a other, such a poise constitutes cruelty. The Court serve hold that “mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of a spouses due to a poise or behavioural settlement by a other.” The Court has serve celebrated that “it is indispensably a matter of deduction to be drawn from a contribution and resources of a case. A feeling of anguish, beating and disappointment in one associate caused by a control of a other can usually be appreciated on assessing a attending contribution and resources in that a dual partners of matrimonial life have been living. The deduction has to be drawn from a attending contribution and resources taken cumulatively. In box of mental cruelty it will not be a scold proceed to take an instance of contravention in siege and afterwards poise a doubt either such poise is sufficient by itself to means mental cruelty. The proceed should be to take a accumulative outcome of a contribution and resources rising from a justification on record and afterwards pull a satisfactory deduction either a postulant in a divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to control of a other.”

21. In another box slanted as Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73, a Apex Court in para 6 of a visualisation has celebrated that normal wear and rip of a family life does not consecrate cruelty. The Court serve hold that “it can't be motionless on a basement of a attraction of a postulant and has to be adjudged on a basement of a march of control that would, in general, be dangerous for a associate to live with a other.”

22. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, a Apex Court in para 10 has hold that “legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, yet as a outcome on a mind of a complainant associate given of a acts or omissions of a other. Cruelty might be earthy or fleshly or might be mental. In earthy cruelty, there can be discernible and approach evidence, yet in a box of mental cruelty there might not during a same time be approach evidence. In cases where there is no approach evidence, courts are compulsory to examine into a mental routine and mental outcome of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this perspective that one has to cruise a justification in matrimonial disputes. (emphasis supplied)

23. The Court has serve hold that to consecrate cruelty, a control complained of should be of „grave and weighty? and something some-more than “ordinary wear and rip of married life”. The Apex Court in A. Jayachandra (supra), also celebrated in para 12 that “mental cruelty might include of created abuses and insults by regulating dirty and violent denunciation heading to consistent reeling of mental assent of a other party.”

See also  DV Quash - Complaint within a period of one year from the date of incident

24. It is also staid law that while appreciating a evidences in these matters, it is a assemblage of a resources that are to be considered. The attendant inlet of evidences is important. The Family Court had arrived during a end that a father has succeeded in proof a contribution that a appellant was violent and was in a robe of picking adult argue frequently and has also threatened to dedicate self-murder and has concerned a father and his family members in a self-murder note. From her poise that she had bolted herself in a room and did not open a doorway of a room and afterwards threatened to dedicate self-murder also stands proved. The attendant evidences that are in a form of complaints filed by a father with a Police opposite such poise of a mom also support his case. The fact that a Police had visited a matrimonial residence of a appellant on such complaints by her father also stands valid on record. It is also notable that while a father had done complaints opposite her poise with a Police, a mom has not done any censure during her stay with a respondent and his family members. The usually censure that she allegedly done is antiquated 23.03.2011, that has been apparently done after a establishment of a petition for divorce by a father that was instituted on 02.02.2011. The pronounced censure seems to be a opposite blast. Her attendant conduct, as complained by a respondent, also gets validation by a fact that in her combined statement, she had done allegations not usually opposite her husband, yet also opposite whole family of her father by saying that they all were indulging into unlawful relations. She has clearly averred in her combined matter in para 4b that they attempted to get excuses for their unlawful family and deeds and misdeeds. Again in para 4c of her combined statement, she had averred that a petitioner, i.e., a respondent and his family members connived with any other to get absolved of a respondent, given she had objected to his unlawful family with his Bhabhi. She had again in para 4n of her combined statement, purported that on 15.10.2010, she came to know about a unlawful family of a respondent/husband with his Bhabhi. The schooled warn for a appellant has unsuccessful to indicate out any justification constructed by a appellant on record to justify these allegations. The schooled Family Court has celebrated in a impugned visualisation that “these are unsubstantiated charges and are bald allegations that has been done recklessly”. Such allegations about carrying unlawful family with Bhabhi positively tumble within a difficulty of grave and pithy cruelty. These unsubstantiated allegations are of a inlet to means mental pang to a chairman opposite whom such allegations are levelled. The appellant has not usually leveled such bald allegations opposite her husband, yet also opposite her sister-in-law (wife of elder hermit of a respondent) and thereby vilifying her repute as well. She has in fact indulged into an act of impression assassination of her father and his Bhabhi.

25. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334, a Supreme Court has clearly hold as under:-

“7. …..The position of law in this courtesy has come to
be good staid and announced that levelling disgusting
accusations of unchastity and faulty laxity with
a chairman outward nuptials and allegations of
extramarital attribute is a grave attack on the
character, honour, reputation, standing as good as the
health of a wife….”

26. Again in Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal,(2012) 7 SCC 288, a Apex Court has hold as under:-

“46…..Thus, we have no scintilla of doubt that the
uncalled-for allegations are firm to emanate mental
agony and agonise in a mind of a husband….”

27. In a new visualisation in Narendra v. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455, a Supreme Court has hold as under:-

“16. ….Except for a groundless and reckless
allegations, there is not even a smallest justification that
would advise that there was something like an affair
of a appellant with a lassie named by the
respondent. We cruise levelling of positively false
allegations and that too, with courtesy to an extramarital
life to be utterly critical and that can certainly be a
cause for mental cruelty….”

28. We find that leveling of fake allegations of unlawful family of such inlet and bulk causes mental pain, anguish and pang to a husband. Such allegations causes surpassing and durability disruptions in a relations and also causes low harm and reasonable confinement that it would be dangerous to live with a wife, generally when she is also melancholy to dedicate suicide.

29. The Supreme Court in Narendra (supra) has clearly staid as under:-

“11…..No father would ever be gentle with or
tolerate such an act by his mom and if a mom succeeds
in committing suicide, afterwards one can suppose how a
poor father would get caught into a clutches of
law, that would substantially hurt his sanity, assent of
mind, career and substantially his whole life. The mere
idea with courtesy to confronting authorised consequences would
put a father underneath extensive stress. The thought
itself is distressing. Such a mental cruelty could not
have been taken easily by a High Court. In our
opinion, usually this one eventuality was sufficient for the
appellant father to get a direct of divorce on the
ground of cruelty. It is unnecessary to supplement that such
threats or acts consecrate cruelty. Our aforesaid perspective is
fortified by a preference of this Court in Pankaj
Mahajan v. Dimple, (2011) 12 SCC 1 wherein it has
been hold that giving steady threats to commit
suicide amounts to cruelty.”

30. We are of a opinion that end of a schooled Family Judge that a appellant had treated her father with cruelty, can't be faulted. We find no feebleness and illegality in a impugned judgment.

31. For a reasons staid hereinabove, a benefaction interest fails and is discharged along with a tentative applications, with no sequence as to costs.

DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 23, 2018

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  When plea of adverse possession is not proved?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation