Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the husband challenged the validity of a judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, denying cruelty by wife in a divorce case, the division bench of Rajan Roy and Subhash Vidyarthi JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment for being unsustainable in law, held that cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse impact on his mental and physical wellbeing and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty.
Background:
The parties got married in 2016 at Lucknow. It was the first marriage of the wife and the second marriage of the husband. It was alleged that the relations between the parties remained normal merely for a period of 4-5 months and thereafter the wife started harassing the husband by various means. She forced the husband to live in a separate room and threatened him, that in case he entered her room, she would commit suicide and entangle his entire family in a criminal case.
The Family Court held that it seems a dispute occurred between the husband and his first wife, which resulted in their divorce. The Family Court further held that although the husband stated that the wife used to say she wanted a divorce, it was him who filed a suit for divorce. The husband has not stated whether the wife has gone away from her home. The husband has not given detailed particulars of the threats extended by the wife and such incidents can occur whenever there are quarrels between a husband and wife. He has not adduced any evidence to establish that such incidents were occurring continuously.
Thus, aggrieved, the husband filed the present appeal.
Issues:
a) Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the ground of cruelty pleaded by the husband for grant of a decree of divorce?
b) Whether the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the Family Court is sustainable in law?
Analysis and Decision:
The Court reiterated that admission is the best evidence, and the admitted facts need no proof. Further, the Court said that although the wife had put in appearance before the Family Court in 2019, she did not file a written statement to controvert these pleadings and, therefore, she impliedly admitted the husbands’ pleadings, which states that relations between the parties remained normal merely for a period of 4-5 months and thereafter the wife started harassing him and she used to force him to live in a separate room .
The Court said that the Family Court has wrongly discarded the evidence of the husband’s father, as he would obviously support the husband’s case.
The Court remarked that in matrimonial disputes, the events in question take place between the parties within the four walls of their house, and the family members are the most natural witnesses to those events. The testimony of family members cannot be discarded on the assumption that they will only support their relative’s case.
The Court also added that the Family Court lost sight of the fact that the entire evidence of the husband has remained unrebutted. Civil suits are required to be decided based on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is applicable in criminal cases, does not apply to civil suits.
The Court stated that the Family Court was not justified in making assumptions against the husband on the ground that his earlier marriage had failed.
The Court noted that one of the reasons mentioned by the Family Court for dismissing the suit is that the husband has not stated as to whether the wife has gone away from her home. Further, the Court said that when the husband has categorically stated that the wife did not allow him to enter her room and she declined cohabitation with her and did not perform her matrimonial obligations, it was apparent that the wife had abandoned the matrimonial relationship between herself and the husband.
The Court said that cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse impact on his mental and physical wellbeing and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty. Thus, as the husband’s allegation of being wrongfully deprived of his conjugal rights has not been controverted by the wife, the same has been admitted by implication.
The Court viewed that there was sufficient evidence to prove the grounds of cruelty pleaded by the husband for grant of a decree of divorce, and he has successfully proved by his ex-parte evidence that the wife was treating him with cruelty.
[Jitendra Kumar Srivastava v. Sweta Srivastava, 2024 SCC OnLine All 4534, decided on 22-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Appellant: Rajesh Kumar Pandey
