Patna High Court: In a case wherein appellant’s petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) was declined, the Division Bench of P.B. Bajanthri* and Ramesh Chand Malviya, JJ., opined that the leveling of false allegation by one spouse to the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside the wedlock amounted to mental cruelty. The Court thus allowed the present appeal and ordered dissolution of marriage between the parties.
Background
Appellant-husband and respondent-wife married as per Hindu rites and customs in 2012 and till 2015 they were living together. Thereafter, the wife was not willing to live in husband’s matrimonial home at village Neem chowk in Bihar, whereas her husband and his parents were insisting her to stay in the village to look after her in-laws. There were allegations against the husband and his parents and others, who were related to husband and in this regard, criminal proceedings were initiated under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.
The wife filed a domestic violence complaint along with filing a complaint against her husband before his employer to take disciplinary action and remove her husband from service. She had also made serious allegations about her husband’s character and against his mother in the domestic violence complaint. The husband filed a matrimonial (divorce) case under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the HMA, whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court declined husband’s petition.
The husband submitted that he was facing character assassination, humiliation and embarrassment in the family circle, the workplace and in society and these issues would fall under mental torture and lead to cruelty at the hands of his wife.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337; Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 CC 706; A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22; Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kolhi, (2006) 4 SCC 558; and Ramchander v. Ananta, (2015) 11 SCC 539 and opined that “whether in the facts and circumstances of a given case, petitioner was able to make out a case of grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, would depend upon the nature of pleadings and evidence in that case and there could be no straitjacket formula nor an exhaustive list of instances could be prepared, where cruelty was said to have been committed by one or other party to the marriage. Cruelty could not be inferred by applying any formula because the said question was to be determined keeping in view the social status of parties, their financial and other conditions, atmosphere and kind of employment or vocation which they carried out, would all be important to interfere whether on given set of allegations it had become difficult for petitioner to live with other party and if the behaviour of such a degree amounted to cruelty.”.
The Court stated that in the present case, either of the parties should have invoked Section 9 of the HMA for restitution of conjugal rights before the jurisdictional forum. The wife, if she had meted out any domestic violence or dowry harassment, she should have resorted appropriate remedy with due care since her marital life was under threat. Initially, she should have resorted for Panchayat or filing of restitution of conjugal rights. On the other hand, she straightway initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498 A of the IPC against her husband, his parents, and his well-wishers.
The Court observed that dropping six names from the proceedings showed that the wife had unnecessarily dragged some of the parties to the lis. The Court opined that alleging character assassination and to say that the husband should be removed from service and further filing of domestic violence while alleging that the husband was in adultery, fornication and further allegations against the husband and his mother that they were involved in soliciting prostitution, were all serious allegations touching the character of respective persons and it would hurt mentally and their image in society and family circle was tarnished.
The Court opined that “every human dignity was to be valued. Privacy included at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes the right to be left alone. Privacy safeguarded individual autonomy and recognized the ability of an individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing way of life were intrinsic to privacy and privacy protected heterogeneity and recognized plurality and diversity of our culture. While the legitimate expectation of privacy might vary from the intimate zone to the private zone and from the private to the public arenas. It was important to underscore that privacy was not lost or surrendered merely because the individual was in a public place. Privacy was attached to the person since it was an essential facet of the dignity of the human being.”.
The Court relied on K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 and opined that the wife tarnished her husband’s character in the working place and in society and thus it amounted to cruelty that was meter out to the husband.
The Court opined that the Family Court failed to appreciate the issues of initiation of criminal proceedings, domestic violence and giving complaint to the husband’s employer which tarnished the husband’s image at his workplace. The Court also opined that character assassination of adultery, fornication and alleging that the husband and his mother were involved in soliciting prostitution, were the elements of cruelty, and it had hurt the husband mentally. The Court stated that the Family Court did not note the fact that the wife’s intention was not to join her husband and she had admitted certain allegations made in the litigations were at the instigation of her Advocate and if it was so, she should have immediately shown concern in withdrawing those allegations but even to this day, she did not made any efforts to withdraw those allegations.
The Court opined that the wife adhered to the arm-twisting method instead of resolving in a polite manner. The Court also opined that “the leveling of false allegation by one spouse to the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside the wedlock amounted to mental cruelty. Social torture by anyone of the spouses to the other, found to be mental torture and cruelty.”.
The Court noted that in the present case, marriage was irretrievably broken down from 04-06-2015. The Court relied on Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, 2023 SCC Online SC 1127 and opined that it was evident from the gist of all the allegations, that they amounted to cruelty. Therefore, the Family Court committed an error in dismissing the husband’s Matrimonial Divorce Case.
The Court held that the husband had made out a prima facie case so as to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Court thus allowed the present appeal and ordered dissolution of marriage between the parties. The Court further considered the fact that the husband was a Deputy Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Power Generation Corporation Limited, he might be holder of the post of Class-I Officer and he must be well paid and the wife had to meet educational expenses of her son and to maintain herself, thus the Court held that the husband shall give Rs. 10 lakhs to his wife as interim alimony subject to adjustment in the maintenance case pending consideration before the jurisdictional Court.
[Alok Bharti v. Jyoti Raj, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 6254, decided on 18-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice P.B. Bajanthri
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant/s: Ankit Katriar, Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent/s: Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Aditi Hansaria, Advocates
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
