Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant-wife against the impugned judgment dated 20-03-2017, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., opined that the incidents that happened in the present case, when viewed in isolation might not be of much significance, but when viewed together, it clearly depicted the wife’s non-adjusting attitude, who had no maturity to sort out the differences with the respondent-husband without his public humiliation, due to which the husband suffered mental cruelty. The Court opined that the wife’s conduct of driving the husband to believe that their disputes were about to end and then such withdrawal from the attempted divorce settlement could cause disquiet, cruelty and uncertainty in the husband’s mind. Such unilateral withdrawal from the divorce amounted to cruelty. Thus, the Court opined that there was no infirmity in the judgment dated 20-03-2017, whereby divorce was granted to the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) and dismissed the present appeal.
Background
In an instant case, the parties got married on 10-12-2001, however, their marriage survived for only thirteen months and they were separated on 19-01-2003. The husband asserted that soon after their marriage, the wife created a ruckus in the family and did not settle in the matrimonial life. The husband stated that they had planned a honeymoon to Bangkok and reserved tickets for the same, however his reservation was cancelled and the trip was postponed by two to three months, which irked the wife. In response to this incident, the wife berated the husband for being good for nothing. Further, the husband stated that the wife had a fetish for cleanliness and she cleaned several items with a wet cloth, and on being stopped, she became hysterical and also, used abusive language against the husband.
Further, on 05-08-2023, the wife filed a complaint in Crime Against Women Cell implicating the husband and his family members and such complaint was converted to the registered FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Thus, the husband claimed that he had been subjected to various acts of cruelty and sought the divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
However, the wife claimed that the false allegations had been made by the husband only to wriggle out of the criminal cases. The wife claimed that she had been harassed by the maternal grandmother and the husband’s sister and was also tortured for the dowry. The wife also stated that the husband used to spend time with his lady friends and used to take them to expensive restaurants and stayed overnight with them. Thus, the wife denied all the allegations and asserted that she was illtreated by the husband and his family members.
The Family Court referred to the major incident of registration of FIR under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC against the husband, his grandmother, mother and sister and opined that even though everyone was discharged by the Court, making such false complaints which translated into criminal proceedings against the husband and his family amounted to cruelty.
Thus, aggrieved by the judgment dated 20-03-2017, granting divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty by the wife, the present appeal was preferred by the wife.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22, Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 and opined that the incidents that happened in the present case, when viewed in isolation might not be of much significance, but when viewed together, it clearly depicted a non adjusting attitude of the wife who had no maturity to sort out the differences with the husband without his public humiliation due to which the husband suffered mental cruelty.
The Court further observed that the wife had made averments that the husband was friendly with many girls and had adulterous relationships. The Court relied on Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334 and Jayanti v. Rakesh Mediratta 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5760 and opined that having made such serious allegations, the wife in her cross-examination admitted that she had no concrete proof of adultery by her husband and she, as per her own admissions made irresponsible allegations against the fidelity and character of the husband without any bias.
Further, the Court noted the complaint filed by the wife against the husband and his family which resulted in the registration of the FIR under Sections 498A, 406 of IPC. The Court relied on K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita (2013) 5 SCC 226, and Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvraj (2020) 3 SCC 786 and opined that while filing of complaints against the spouse and their family members was not cruelty in itself, but all the allegations levelled against the husband and his family members had been found to be false. The wife had miserably failed to prove any acts of cruelty and the husband and his family members were made to suffer due to protracted litigation and also, faced the prospect of arrest on unsubstantiated allegations, which constituted cruelty against the husband. The Court opined that the wife’s act of filing false criminal cases against the husband and his family, but also, appealing against them in a vexatious manner amounted to cruelty.
Further, the Court noted that the wife had agreed for divorce by mutual consent and accordingly, as per the settlement between the parties, Rs. 5 lakhs were given by the husband to the wife, and even after this part payment, the wife unilaterally withdrew her consent for divorce and returned the amount. Thus, the Court relied on Rajiv Chikkara v. Sandhya Mathur, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6224 and Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1221, and opined that such conduct of the wife in driving the husband to believe that their disputes were about to put an end and then withdraw from the attempted settlement could cause disquiet, cruelty and uncertainty in the husband’s mind. The Court opined that it was evident that the fight inter se the parties were not on any justifiable grounds, but as a war between the egos, prompted by the desire to wreak vengeance against the spouse and such unilateral withdrawal from the divorce amounted to cruelty.
The Court opined that the Family Court had rightly observed that “a matrimonial life which survived only for thirteen months and has seen civil and criminal litigations running into more than thirteen years, and the wife’s conduct of pursuing Appeals, Revision in higher fora is evidently extremely cruel”. Thus, the Court opined that there was no infirmity in the judgment dated 20-03-2017, whereby divorce was granted to the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA and dismissed the present appeal.
[RS v. VS, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8317, decided on 20-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Raman Kapur, Sr. Advocate and Varun Kapur, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Amarjit Singh Bedi and Varun Chandiok, Advocates.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
