FAO-M-124-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-M-124-2017
Date of Decision: 11.5.2017
Harjit Kaur
….Appellant.
Versus
Jaspal Singh
…Respondent.
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU.
PRESENT: Ms. Jasneet Nehra, Advocate for the appellant.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2017
passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the petition filed
by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (in short “the Act”) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce
was allowed, the appellant-wife has approached this Court by way of instant
appeal.
2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as
narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was
solemnized on 20.1.2002 at village Sidhwan, Tehsil and District Amritsar
according to Hindu rites and rituals. Both the parties lived together as
husband and wife and cohabited as such. From the said wedlock, a male
child was born on 3.2.2006. At the time of marriage, the respondent-
husband was serving in Indian Army. The parents of the respondent-
1 of 14
04-06-2017 20:12:27 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -2-
husband treated the appellant-wife like their own daughter and provided all
the basic amenities. However, the behaviour and attitude of the appellant-
wife towards the respondent-husband and his parents was very rude, cruel
and harsh. She was a very short tampered lady and used to pick dispute on
petty matters. Even she compelled the respondent-husband to get share of
the property from his parents and to live with her parents as a ‘Ghar Jawai’
or to purchase some kothi in her name in Amritsar. The appellant-wife did
not discharge her matrimonial duties as she flatly refused to prepare tea or
meals etc. On 21.8.2009, the appellant-wife again asked the respondent-
husband to get share from his parents and to purchase a kothi in Amritsar in
her name and on his refusal, the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home
along with minor son and also took cash and jewellery with her. Inspite of
best efforts made by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife did not turn
up to her matrimonial home. She got lodged a criminal case under Sections
406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent-husband and his
parents. However, they were acquitted in the said case by the trial court
vide judgment dated 3.2.2016. In this way, the appellant-wife treated the
respondent-husband and his family members with cruelty. Accordingly, the
respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for
dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The said petition was
resisted by the appellant-wife by filing a written statement. Besides raising
various preliminary objections, it was pleaded that from the very first day of
the marriage, the respondent-husband and his family members were not
satisfied with the dowry and they started taunting, teasing and tormenting
her. They started giving beatings to the appellant-wife and turned her out of
the matrimonial home by saying that if she wanted to rehabilitate her, she
2 of 14
04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -3-
had to bring more dowry. In February, 2009, she was turned out of her
matrimonial home due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry and then
her mother gave ` 25,000/- to the respondent-husband and his family
members. On 21.8.2009, the jeth and jethani of the appellant-wife talked
telephonically with the respondent-husband that as she had not brought the
car, she be eliminated and they would handle the situation. At their
instigation, the appellant-wife was given kick blows by the respondent-
husband at her abdomen. The respondent-husband and his family members
turned out the appellant-wife from the matrimonial home in the wearing
apparels along with the minor child. Due to her physical health, the
appellant-wife was admitted in Civil Hospital on 27.8.2009. The other
averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the
same was made. The respondent-husband controverted the averments made
in the written statement by filing rejoinder and reiterated those of the
averments made in the divorce petition. From the pleadings of the parties,
the trial court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner
with cruelty? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is
entitled for a decree of divorce? OPP
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Relief.
3. In support of his case, the respondent-husband besides
examining himself as PW1 also examined Balkar Singh as PW2. On the
other hand, to rebut the evidence of the respondent-husband, the appellant-
wife examined herself as RW1 and Manjit Kaur as RW2 and also tendered
3 of 14
04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -4-
into evidence the certified copy of appeal.
4. The trial court took issues No.1 and 2 together being
interconnected and on appreciation of evidence led by the parties, decided
both the issues in favour of the respondent-husband holding that he was
entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty caused by the
appellant-wife by getting false criminal case registered against the
respondent-husband and his family members. Issue No.3 was decided
against the appellant-wife holding that the divorce petition was
maintainable. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated
12.4.2017 allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage between the
parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Hence, the present
appeal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-wife, we do not
find any merit in the appeal.
6. The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal
is whether the acquittal of the husband and his family members of
matrimonial offences under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
would be sufficient to hold that it has caused mental cruelty to the husband
so as to entitle him to a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act.
7. Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act empowers the Court to dissolve the
matrimonial ties between the parties by a decree of divorce on a petition by
either spouse where the said spouse has been treated with cruelty after the
solemnization of the marriage. Cruelty has not been defined in the Act but
various pronouncements of the Apex Court and other High Courts have
outlined the scope of the term ‘cruelty’. Cruelty is evident where one spouse
treats the other and manifests such feelings towards him or her as to cause
4 of 14
04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -5-
reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the
other spouse. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Whether a spouse is
inflicted with physical cruelty or not, it can be judged on the basis of direct
evidence whereas mental cruelty is to be inferred on analyzing the factual
matrix of each case and drawing conclusion thereon.
8. The Apex Court in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta 2002(3)
RCR (Civil) 529 had very elaborately analyzed the expression ‘cruelty’ as a
ground of divorce under the Act. The relevant portion thereof reads thus:-
“Under the statutory provision cruelty includes both
physical and mental cruelty. The legal conception of
cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to
amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined
under the Act. Probably, the Legislature has advisedly
refrained from making any attempt at giving a
comprehensive definition of the expression that may
cover all cases, realising the danger in making such
attempt. The accepted legal meaning in England as also
in India of this expression, which is rather difficult to
define, had been ‘conduct of such character as to have
caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental),
or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such
danger.
XX XX XX
XX XX XX
21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be
taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other
5 of 14
04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -6-which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the
latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the
matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is
a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to
the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike
the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult
to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter
of inference to be drawn from the facts and
circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish,
disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by
the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on
assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which
the two partners of matrimonial life have been living.
The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts
and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental
cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an
instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the
question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to
cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the
cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances
emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a
fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce
petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to
conduct of the other.”
9. Further, setting out illustrative cases of mental cruelty, the
Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 had
6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -7-
held as under:-
“No uniform standard can ever be laid down for
guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some
instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’. The instances
indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only
illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of
the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as
would not make possible for the parties to live with each
other could come within the broad parameters of mental
cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly
clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and
continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount
to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of
manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a
degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse
absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of
deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse
caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead
to mental cruelty.
7 of 14
04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -8-
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render
miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of
one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health
of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the
resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave,
substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal standard
of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or
deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental
cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness
and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a
ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and
tear of the married life which happens in day to day life
would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole
and a few isolated instances over a period of years will
not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent
for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -9-deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it
extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer,
may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilization without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the
wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical
reason or without the consent or knowledge of her
husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental
cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse
for considerable period without there being any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount
to cruelty.
(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.”
10. In addition to the aforesaid, certain other illustrations were
9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -10-
added by the Apex Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC
226 as under:-
“Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations
against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings,
filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items
which may have adverse impact on the business prospect
or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false
complaints and cases in the court against the spouse
would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental
cruelty to the other spouse.”
11. Elucidating ‘mental cruelty’ the Apex Court in K. Srinivas
Rao’s case (supra) concluded that if a false criminal complaint is filed
against the spouse and his/her relatives regarding matrimonial offences, it
would be a case of mental cruelty. Following the aforesaid pronouncement,
the Division Bench of this Court in Imlesh v. Amit, AIR 2014 Punjab and
Haryana 89, observed as under:-
“So far as the finding of the trial Court regarding cruelty
on the basis of involvement in a false criminal case is
concerned, it may be said that it in itself constitutes
sufficient ground for granting divorce as it amounted to
cruelty. Reference in this regard may be made to the case
in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226:
AIR 2013 SC 2176, where it was held by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court that where indecent/ defamatory
statements are made in the complaint/ criminal
proceedings, the same singly and cumulatively amounted
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -11-to mental cruelty warranting grant of divorce. If a false
complaint is filed against the spouse or his/her relatives,
it amounted to mental cruelty. In the said case also, wife
had filed a case under Section 498-A IPC and the
husband and his family members were acquitted and
decree of divorce was granted to the husband on that
ground, as it amounted to mental cruelty.”
12. Similar view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in K.
Srinivas v. K. Sunita Civil Appeal No. 1213 of 2006 decided on
19.11.2014 with the following observations:-
“4. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the
Respondent-Wife has vehemently contended that it is not
possible to label the wife’s criminal complaint detailed
above as a false or a vindictive action. In other words, the
acquittal of the Appellant and his family members in the
criminal complaint does not by itself, automatically and
justifiably, lead to the conclusion that the complaint was
false; that only one complaint was preferred by the
Respondent-Wife, whereas, in contradistinction, in
K.Srinivas Rao a series of complaints by the wife had
been preferred. The argument was premised on the
averment that the investigation may have been faulty or
the prosecution may have been so careless as to lead to
the acquittal, but the acquittal would not always indicate
that the Complainant had intentionally filed a false case.
What should be kept in perspective, it is reasonably
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -12-argued, that the Complainant is not the controlling
conductor in this Orchestra, but only one of the
musicians who must deliver her rendition as and when
and how she is called upon to do. Secondly, according to
the learned counsel, the position would have been
appreciably different if a specific finding regarding the
falsity of the criminal complaint was returned, or if the
Complainant or a witness on her behalf had committed
perjury or had recorded a contradictory or incredible
testimony. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Wife
states that neither possibility has manifested itself here
and, therefore, it would be unfair to the Respondent-Wife
to conclude that she had exhibited such cruelty towards
the Appellant and her in-laws that would justify the
dissolution of her marriage.
5. The Respondent-Wife has admitted in her cross-
examination that she did not mention all the incidents on
which her Complaint is predicated, in her statement
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not her case that
she had actually narrated all these facts to the
Investigating Officer, but that he had neglected to
mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of
the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived
afterthought. We affirm the view of the High Court that
the criminal complaint was “ill advised”. Adding thereto
is the factor that the High Court had been informed of the
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -13-acquittal of the Appellant-Husband and members of his
family. In these circumstances, the High Court ought to
have concluded that the Respondent-Wife knowingly and
intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to
embarrass and incarcerate the Appellant and seven
members of his family and that such conduct
unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
6. Another argument which has been articulated on
behalf of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that
the filing of the criminal complaint has not been pleaded
in the petition itself. As we see it, the criminal complaint
was filed by the wife after filing of the husband’s divorce
petition, and being subsequent events could have been
looked into by the Court. In any event, both the parties
were fully aware of this facet of cruelty which was
allegedly suffered by the husband. When evidence was
lead, as also when arguments were addressed, objection
had not been raised on behalf of the Respondent-Wife
that this aspect of cruelty was beyond the pleadings. We
are, therefore, not impressed by this argument raised on
her behalf.
7. In these circumstances, we find that the Appeal is
well founded and deserves to be allowed. We
unequivocally find that the Respondent-Wife had filed a
false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::
FAO-M-124-2017 -14-sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.”
13. Examining the factual matrix in the present case, the
respondent-husband and his family members were acquitted vide judgment
dated 3.2.2016, Ex.P1 in the dowry case got registered vide FIR No. 113
dated 30.8.2009, under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
Against the judgment of acquittal, the appeal filed by the appellant-wife is
pending before the appellate court. In such circumstances, it would cause a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the husband that it was not safe for
him to live with the wife. Besides, refusing to attend household chores and
showing disrespect to the respondent-husband and his family members
amounted to cruelty towards the respondent-husband. Thus, the irresistible
conclusion would be that the appellant-wife had treated the husband-
respondent with cruelty.
14. In view of the above, learned counsel for the appellant-wife
was unable to demonstrate that there was any error or perversity in the
findings recorded by the trial court which may warrant interference by this
Court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby
dismissed. No costs.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
May 11, 2017 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
gbs JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2017 20:12:28 :::