31 classic cases of cruelty & neglect. 31 HC / SC Gems where husbands won divorce 4 wife’s cruelty
31 cases where truth triumphed & husbands won divorce on cruelty ! 31 from the 500+ !
We welcome the new year with prayer, hope and determination ! We start this year with an unshaken belief that truth shall triumph, and truth alone shall triumph ultimately. Though Sun may temporarily seem to be hidden by clouds, we know that the mighty Sun is far more powerful than these temporary clouds… ! May truth triumph ! May honest men and families find peace, wealth and happiness this year and after! Happy and prosperous new year 2016
31 cases where truth triumphed and wife’s cruelty was proven (just a sample from the few hundreds blogged @ https://vinayak.wordpress.com !!)
**************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#1: Early morning he wanted VIOLENT SEX. When refused he asked 2lakhs! Wife looses case & NO alimony to her! Madras HC gem
Ablaa naari, the beacon of love, embodiment of culture has the following false allegations in addition to complaints about husband’s abuses and ill treatments
“….4) the respondent had behaved brutally in sexual life and he used to wake up the petitioner during the mid-night and had violent sex with her and when the petitioner refused and expressed her tiredness due to over work, the respondent-husband kicked and assaulted his wife and also the respondent blackmailed the petitioner to subject herself for violent sexual life otherwise he will bring call girls home and he will have sex with them in the presence of petitioner-wife.
xxx
(6) On 25.4.2003, the respondent-husband forced the petitioner-wife for sex in the early morning and when she was not willing, the respondent assaulted her severely and threw her from matrimonial home by saying that she was not useful for his sexual life and also asked to bring Rs.2 lakhs from her parents otherwise he will not accept her…..”
The Honourable HC sees thru each of these false complaints and decrees
“…42. From the above discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner/wife has not proved the alleged incidences of cruelty by her husband by adducing reliable evidence and the Trial Court has erroneously held that the alleged incidences of cruelty were proved and granted divorce and therefore the above said order of the Trial Court on the ground of cruelty is liable to be set aside.
43. We are also of the considered view that the petitioner wife is not entitled to any amount as permanent alimony since the petition filed by the petitioner/wife for divorce is not maintainable as already discussed in earlier paragraphs. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for permanent alimony as prayed for in the petition and we answer the points accordingly……”
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.M.A No.887 of 2010 and MP.No.1 of 2010
A.Sukumar Vs. K.S.Chitra
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1L8
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#2: Filing false criminal cases, breaking & throwing mangalsutra, getting husband arrested, neglecting household, ill treating husband etc are cruelty. Divorce granted. P & H HC affirms lower court decree.
Wife leaves matri home on many occasions
Wife breaks mangalsutra throws it on ground during quarrel
Wife has written letters to husband’s employer urging them to take action against husband
Wife files false 406, 498a case wherein the husband was arrested but the final outcome resulted in acquittal of husband and other accused by the trial court vide judgment dated 23.2.2013
The Husband argues that “…acts of the appellant (wife in this appeal) in insisting upon the department to initiate action against the respondent and also to prosecute him for demand of dowry show that the marriage had irretrievably been broken and such acts of the appellant amount to cruelty and were sufficient to dissolve marriage between the parties…”
So the Hon HC summarizes that “……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(1) (ia) of the Act….”
& the Hon HC concludes that “… Thus, the irresistible conclusion would be that the appellant-wife had treated the husband-respondent with cruelty….” and “…..Learned counsel for the appellant 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….”
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 262-M of 2006 (O&M)
Dr.Anita Rani Versus Dr.Suresh Kumar
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1IE
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#3: When cruelty desertion alleged by wife NOT true, wife not caring, living away, she can NOT take advantage of own wrong Wife DENIED divorce !!
This is the sad case of a 56 year old woman and 58 year old male fighting in courts. The lady is seeking divorce and alleging that her husband has been cruel and has deserted her. The lower court dismisses her case. The matter moves to HC. The HC appreciates the arguments and states
We have given the Hon court’s reasoning with some empahsis / addendum in brackets ()
“….18. So, the evidence of R.W. 1 (husband) is that he never ill-treated the petitioner. P.W. 1 (wife) has clearly admitted that the respondent took keen interest as normal father towards his son and he only used to ask the petitioner for some money and he was in the habit of giving his salary cover to the petitioner. So, it is well-evident that the respondent never ill-treated the petitioner and he was very cordial to the petitioner and the petitioner only acted in an indifferent manner towards the respondent. R, W. 1 further says that when he met with an accident and sustained injuries, the petitioner did not attend to him, P.W. 1 has also stated that at one time, she removed the “Thirumangalyam” as she is employed. R.W. 1 has stated that the petitioner removed her “Mangalyam” and he was upset by it. No Hindu women will be so dare enough to remove the “Thirumangalyam” by herself. Her admission that she removed her “Thirumangalyam” goes to establish her indifferent attitude towards the respondent….”
“….21. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1 and R.W. 1, we are clearly of the view that cruelty as alleged by the petitioner is not true and the petitioner is not entitled to divorce on either of the grounds. The Family Court has carefully analysed the entire evidence and has dismissed the petition. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court…”
Madras High Court
Sarada vs V. Satyamurthi on 4 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: I (2001) DMC 210, (2001) 1 MLJ 224
Link : wp.me/p7s7-1K9
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#4: Suicide attempt as husband did NOT set up separate house is cruelty. Husband gets divorce ! Madras HC
* Wife attempts suicide on multiple occasions
* She is taken to the Govt Stanley medical hospital and treated
* She claims that she tried to commit suicide because husband refused to set up a separate house
* Lower courts REJECT husband’s plea of cruelty
* Madras HC appreciates the evidence and conduct of parties and concludes that the wife treated the husband with cruelty
* Though desertion is NOT proven by the husband in this case, cruelty is proven and so divorce granted
Madras High Court
A.P. Ranga Rao vs Vijayalakshmi on 26 September, 1988
Equivalent citations: I (1990) DMC 567
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1K7
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#5: Wife making false adultery allegations & filing complaints with husband’s employer is cruelty. Madras HC sees thru wife’s game
Wife making false adultery allegations & filing complaints with husband’s employer is cruelty. Wife also deserts husband using one pretext or other. Family court rejects husband’s divorce and allows wife’s RCR ! HC seeks wife’s game and orders divorce in favour of husband on both grounds cruelty and desertion! HC sets aside wife’s RCR !!
“….Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that all the allegations made by the respondent were not proved and on the other hand, the appellant’s case of cruelty was supported by evidence. In fact, one should only look at the counter affidavit filed by the respondent which itself would prove the acts of cruelty alleged by the appellant. The learned counsel made impassioned submissions regarding the ordeal suffered by litigants seeking reliefs under the Family Courts Act. He submitted that it is not as if litigants in India rush to the Family Courts without any excuse. Conciliation and mediation takes place at every level within the family, amongst the friends, within the community and only when everything fails that the litigants approach the Family Court and thereafter, there is very little scope for reconciliation. In this case, the appellant had been harassed by the respondent in the office and she had made wild allegations without any justification. She had made allegations regarding adultery, which was not proved, which itself is an act of cruelty and therefore, the Family Court had erred in accepting the case of the respondent. Learned counsel referred to several decisions in support of his submissions.
The Hon HC says “….In 2003 (4) L.W. 609, the Supreme Court held that aspersions regarding infidelity is the worst form of insult and cruelty and that a wife is likely to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it will be dangerous to live with a husband who was taunting her like that.
The Hon HC further states “…. 2005 (4) C.T.C. 287 : 2006 (1) L.W. 512 was a case where the parties had spent a good part of their lives in litigation and the Supreme Court defined the ingredients of desertion where the wife had insisted on the husband shifting from the village to the place where she was working; did not visit him on the death of her father-in-law, did not attend the wedding of her brother-in-law; and the Conciliation Officer’s report was that the wife was willing to live with the husband only if they live separately. In that case also, the Supreme Court, holding that the marriage was as good as dead and dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown…..”
Finally divorce is decreed in favour of the husband
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.M.A. Nos.2871 and 2872 of 2004
Nagappan Vs Virgin Rani
Link : wp.me/p7s7-1Kb
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#6: Husband wins divorce on grounds of cruelty as wife regularly leaves husband files false 498a 406 where husband is arrested. Wife also looses appeal @ Cal. HC !!
Husband gets divorce under grounds of Cruelty as wife regularly left the husband’s house against his wish and also filed false 498a case against husband and MIL, wherein husband was arrested. This 498a also finally ends in acquittal. Wife also files an appeal against the divorce decree (which went in favour of the husband), argues at the HC that she was immensely tortured etc, but she looses appeal @ Cal. HC !!
* wife files 498a etc
* wife left the matrimonial home along with her father on January 23, 1994 and on that very date lodged a complaint under Section 498A Indian Penal Code against her husband. Husband was arrested by police and had to remain in jail custody for 14 days.
* Wife also lodged another complaint under Section 406 Indian Penal Code against her husband and after trial the accused were acquitted. According to the husband within a very short time thereafter the husband was ill-treated by the wife and her father and brother. He used to be pressurised to desert his old widowed mother and unmarried sister to live as ‘Gharjamai’.
* The HON HC goes on the say “….An inference, however, can be drawn by matrimonial Court that by initiating criminal proceedings under Section 498A Indian Penal Code wife has an intention not to live with the husband. This is because the person lodging such complaint under Section 498A is imputed with the knowledge that, if convicted, the accused, would be incarcerated. ….”
* And the HON HCc concludes that “…..30. However, on the authority of the judgment in Nivedita Banerjee, (supra), the act of the wife in the matter of initiating criminal proceedings where the husband was arrested and detained in jail custody, that case having ended in acquittal just as in the case on hand, the judgment under appeal can be sustained. Inference can be drawn that the wife has no intention to go back to the husband and her intention was to terminate the matrimonial relationship. ….”
* so wife looses her appeal against husband’s divorce (i.e. Husband’s divorce is confirmed by HC)
Calcutta High Court
Smt. Kajal Roy vs Prasanta Kr. Roy
Equivalent citations: (2005) 2 CALLT 567 HC
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1Kk
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#7: Wife denying sex, acting like deadwood, NON participation @ rituals, deserting husband are all cruelty. Husband wins Divorce
Wife refuses sex, refuses to participate in customary ceremonies, leaves husband often and files false complaints. Tries to deprive him of divorce by appealing to HC. HC sees thru the wife’s game and confirms the divorce in favour of the husband.
Also, the importance of proving your case at the lower court comes out in this case. HC relies on lower court case / testimonies to decide on this case
“…..Trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced by both the parties found the version of the appellant untrustworthy and unreliable while that of the respondent, much more credible and trustworthy……
11. …..In the present case, the testimony of the respondent (husband) that the appellant (wife) was never responsive and was like a dead wood when he had sexual intercourse with her remained unrebutted. ….”
“…..The respondent has also successfully proved on record that the appellant did not participate in the customary rituals of dud mundri and that of chudha ceremony, which caused grave mental cruelty to the respondent. It is a matter of common knowledge that after the marriage, certain customary rituals are performed and the purpose of these rituals is to cement the bond of marriage. …..No doubt the testimony of the respondent has been supported by the evidence of his father and there is no corroborative evidence from the side of the appellant, ………….
“……Undeniably, these customary ceremonies are part of the marriage ceremony and refusal of the same that too in the presence of the family members of the husband would be an act of cruelty on the part of the wife. …. The appellant herein also filed CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS against the respondent and his family members and later withdrew the same. Undoubtedly, it is the right of the victim to approach the police and CAW cell to complain the conduct of the offending spouse, however, frivolous and vexatious complaints like in the present case led to cause mental torture and harassment to the respondent and his family members. Thus, taking into account the conduct of the appellant in totality, this court is of the view that the same amounts to causing mental cruelty to the respondent……..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No.185/2001
Smt. Shashi Bala Vs. Shri Rajiv Arora
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1Kp
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#8: Slapping Mother in law, emptying bank, insisting separate resid, deserting hubby all cruelty. Divorce granted even B4 498a decided. Civil & criminal cases continue on own merits. One need not affect the other !
Husband proves that the wife was disrespectful towards his parents, she was abusive and even slapped her Mother in law and insulted her before relatives. Husband and his family tolerated the cruel acts & her behavior continued to deteriorate. She left the husband on numerous occasions, harassed husband for a separate resid. & emptied the bank account !!. All these were decreed as cruelty towards the husband. Wife’s argues that the 498a / 406 case is NOT yet decided. But HC confirms divorce even B4 498a is decided. HC observes that Civil and criminal cases continue on own merits. Decisions in one need not affect the other !
Key Excerpts :
“……33. As regards to the contention of pendency of criminal proceedings, in P. Swaroopa Rani Vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu 2008 (3) SCALE 501, the Apex Court has observed as under : “It is, however, well-settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case.”
xxx
79. In this way it is evident that appellant lived at the matrimonial home only for short intervals and most of the times she was living at her parental home, thereby, strengthening the case of the respondent. ……….
82. It is clear that the appellant has not remained consistent on her allegations and she has been improving her defence at the belated stage. In the circumstances, no reliance can be placed upon the version of the appellant.
83. On the other hand, the respondent has been able to establish by way of specific pleadings and evidence that appellant came back to the matrimonial home on 23rd July, 1999 after the birth the child. In view of this, it is difficult to accept that the incident of beating and confining the appellant had happened on 23rd July, 1999.
84. It is admitted by the appellant in her cross- examination that she withdrew the amount from the joint account of the parties without informing the respondent. It is also admitted by the appellant in her cross examination that she demanded separate residence before Crime against Women Cell stating that she was fed up with the cruelty.
85. The act of the appellant in withdrawing the amount from the joint account of the parties without informing the respondent also indicates the intention of the appellant to stay separately.
86. Thus, in view of the above discussion and in the light of evidence, it is clear that the appellant has not been able to establish her case and the conduct of the appellant was not proper towards the respondent and his parents thereby causing cruelty to them.
87. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
MAT App. No. 82 of 2007
Lata Verma Versus Jayant Verma
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ku
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#9: Wild, reckless baseless allegations of impotency, lack of manliness in WS are cruelty. Husband wins. BOM HC
In this case the wife lives with the husband only for a short while and the couple part. The husband alleges that the wife was of unsound mind and also treated him with cruelty, was cold and refused to cohabit normally etc, while the wife alleges that the husband is impotent and unmanly. The lower court grants divorce in favour of the husband. Wife goes on appeal to Bom HC.
HC analyses the facts and concludes that the husband has (a) NOT proven cruelty during the short matrimonial life, (b) has NOT proven that the wife is of unsound minf but (c) he is entitled to divorce on the basis of wild, reckless baseless allegations of impotency, lack of manliness made by the wife in her written statements. This case should help husbands who are hit with preposterous allegations in the WS that are left unrpoven.
The Honourable court summarises :“…….In the light of the above, my answers to the questions framed in the first para of this judgment are as under :–
(i) Cruelty in the matrimonial law means conduct of such type that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
(ii) It would follow that the old English law concept of danger is no longer applicable in India.
(iii) The making of wild, reckless and baseless allegations of impotency and lack of manliness — itself amount to cruelty in the matrimonial law. ………”
Bombay High Court
Smt. Nirmala Manohar Jagesha vs Manohar Shivram Jagesha
Equivalent citations: AIR 1991 Bom 259, (1991) 93 BOMLR 373, I (1992) DMC 180, 1991 (1) MhLj 267
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ky
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#10: MA LLB wife files 498a & alleges husband has illicit relation with husband’s OWN sister. Cruelty decreed . MP HC
MA LLB Qualified wife files 498a etc case and also alleges that her husband had illicit relationship with his own sister. Husband says that the case is false and is fabricated to outst the mother in law & sister in law and to usurp property. Husband examines (cross examines) himself and sister and disproves allegations. Lower court decrees divorce in favour of husband. Wife appeals to HC, fights cases party in person. HC appreciates the matter on record, discusses what is mental cruelty at length and confirms the lowercourt decree on grounds of cruelty
Excerpts : “…..Specific allegations have also been made by the respondent in support of his case by narrating incident of 19.12.06 by alleging that on that day at about 7.00 PM, the appellant, her brother and sister came to his house and treated the respondent and his family members with cruelty in presence of his friend Shailendra who appeared as PW/3. About that incident, it was alleged that on that day the family members of the appellant and appellant herself wanted the respondent to execute papers for transfer of matrimonial house in her name and on his refusal she abused the respondent and his sister. She even made allegations that the respondent was having illicit relationship with his sister. Incident of 27.12.2006 is also referred to on which day threats were given to the respondent that if the house was not mutated within seven days in the name of the appellant, a false complaint will be lodged against the respondent and his family members…”
“….33. It may be observed here that in matrimonial life, the possibility of such situation that the sister living in parents’ house after her marriage is not an unusual situation. It quite often happen if her relationship with her husband is not very good and she did not feel comfortable then only option for her to live with her parents. Even if such living by the married daughter is for a long period, this cannot be a reason for the sister-in-law to create a situation where relationship between the parties comes to such a situation that they are unable to live together which appears to be a situation created by the appellant and has given reason for filing of this divorce petition. She went to the extent of making allegation against the sister of the husband calling her a person of shady character…..”
…36. Besides the specific act of mental cruelty making false allegations against the sister of the respondent, it is also matter on record that the appellant filed various such complaint under Section 498-A of IPC under Domestic Violence Act. In those proceedings, the appellant even opposed the bail application went to the extent of filing revisions against the grant of bail to the respondent and his family members. Such conduct on the part of the appellant further constitute mental cruelty…”
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR BENCH GWALIOR.
Mamta Bhardwaj vs. Madhusudan Bhardwaj
F.A.159/2013
Link : wp.me/p7s7-1KA
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#11: Driving husband out of the matrimonial home, assaulting & abusing him, refusing 2 cohabit ALL cruelty, Husband granted divorce, Delhi HC
A 60+ year old man who was driven away from his own house seeks justice. Wife refuses to live with him, abuses him and assaults him. She admits writing letters against the husband to the Prime Minister, her son Shri Sanjay Gandhi; and Shri Charan Singh under her own signatures and also to Shah Cominission. The allegations against her are supported by no less than the oral testimony of her sons Surinder Kumar (AW2) and Raj Kumar (AW3) and the letters of the eldest one Ashok who is abroad and pelts stones at his car !! Husband pleads for mercy for divorce !!
The court appreciates the evidence and says : “….that there was evidence plain and sufficient enough to justify a finding that the life of the husband has been subjected to cruelty and has become unendurable even for a man who has carried on with it right into his sixties. There is limit to endurance. Howsoever, one may wish, society cannot scrap marriage. It is compulsion of creation. It was rather sanctified and hallowed so that couples live in peace, in fear of God and help retain calmness in the community. Yet, it had to devise doors of exit as and when it becomes unreasonably unbearable and converges into sheer bondage. I, therefore, find no ground for altering the decision of the court below. There remained nothing in the marriage except the name. The vows were forgotten. Incantations lost in their spell.The learned Judge below was right in formally snapping the ties which had ceased to be binding happy or purposeful.
(10) I say amen and dismiss this appeal. The cross-objection need not now be examined and is dismissed hereby. Let me, however, add that it is not easy as the court below did, to absolve the wife of willful desertion. She refuses with astounding obstinacy to go and live in the new matrimonial home and demands of the husband to come and live where she wishes to…..”
Delhi High Court
Chandhok (Lajwanti) vs Chandhok (O.N.)
Equivalent citations: ILR 1982 Delhi 689, 1981 RLR 619
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1KI
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#12: Forcing hubby to be a Ghar Jamaee, deserting him on his refusal 2 ditch his own parents, not attending 2 his ailments are all matrimonial cruelty. Divorce decreed by. MP HC
In this case the couple get married at a very young age. Right from the start of the matrimonial relations the wife and her father pressurize the husband to live as a Ghar Jamaee. He refuses to ditch his parents and live with them. So the wife misbehaves with him and starts living with her parents. She does not attend to him even though he is an Asthma Patient. His attempts to bring her back fail. He files for divorce in lower court, but looses the case in lower court. He appeals to the HC. The Hon HC appreciates the evidence and correspondence between parties and ascertains the wife’s cruelty and desertion. Husband gets divorce.
Excerpts :
* The Honourable HC concludes that “…..34. It would appear from the evidence as discussed above, that the respondent and her father had been continuously pressing the petitioner/husband to live with them as ‘Ghar Jamaee’. On the petitioner’s refusal to yield their unjust demand as above, the respondent/wife started misbehaving and maltreating the petitioner/husband and his family members. The respondent/wife had forsaken the company of the petitioner/husband without any justifiable cause and against his wishes. The petitioner/husband was an asthama patient. However, he was left alone to suffer in his misery and ailment, while he was posted at Bakhtara, as has been stated by him. Though married the petitioner, never enjoyed the marital bliss and comfort of a home. She did not return back despite requests and efforts made by the petitioner. The respondent’s father had extended threats to the father of the petitioner that he would be losing his younger son i.e., the petitioner also, as was the case of the elder brother of the petitioner.
* 35. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner had to live a lonely life for a very long period of 17 years. The cumulative effect of the above facts and circumstances indicate that the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty.
36. It is thus clear that the grounds of desertion and cruelty have been established by the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, grounds for granting a decree of divorce as enumerated in Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13 (1) (i-b) have been made out…………….”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gajendra vs Smt. Madhu Mati
Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 MP 299, II (2001) DMC 123, 2001 (3) MPHT 335
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1KK
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#13: Refusing sex, suicide threats and tantrums on Bro in Law’s engagement date, ill treating & indifferent attitude to husband’s relatives, all cruelty. Divorce decreed by Delhi HC
* Husband and wife are doctors
* Wife says she is un interested in the marriage right from the very beginning
* Wife abstains from sex even during honey moon, has to be coaxed, cajoled etc to have sex
* she refuses to live with her husband, refuses to take part in Diwali Puja and continues to live at her parents place
* She threatens of suicide on the day of the husband’s brother’s engagement and creates a big scene of trying to jump from the house balcony ; She refuses to attend to her father in law when father in law is operated upon, and bedridden ;
* In addition to above she tries to force the husband to move away from his parents and live at her place; All above acts are decreed as cruelty by the lower court and confirmed by Delhi HC
The Honorable HC Goes thru a cantena of decisions on Cruelty and decides that the wife’s behavior towards her husband, in laws and marriage constitute cruelty !!
Delhi High Court
Smt. Alka vs Dr. R.K. Gautam
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1KO
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#14: Removing mangasutra, ill-treating husband, neglecting household & child, ALL cruelty. AP HC confirms Divorce
* The marriage on 26th February, 1982 at Eluru according to Hindu rites and customs.
* Out of their wedlock, in the year 1982, a male child was born.
* Wife did not breast feed the male child and did not choose to pay proper care and attention. Ultimately, the boy died due to lack of proper care
* she was brought back by her parents by eventually left the husband
* she also left her matrimonial home and filed for maintenance
* lower court appreciates the evidence and grants divorce to husband, on grounds of cruelty
* wife goes on appeal to AP HC
The Honourable HC appreciates the evidence on record and summarises as follows
* …A threat by wife to her husband that she would put an end to her life or that she would be set herself to fire is sufficient to imperil the happiness of the husband.
* …The act like removing Mangala-sutram etc., beating the child would amount to cruelty, Admittedly, the respondent is not having her Mangalasutram or Pasuputadu on her neck while giving evidence. She removed, it even though the marriage was subsisting and her husband is alive. Such act is not expected from an educated Hindu Brahmin Woman. Here it may be mentioned that this Court requested one of the junior Advocates of Sri C.V.N. Sastry to examine and find out whether the appellant-wife is wearing Mangalasutram or not. On verification, he informed the Court that the appellant is not having mangalasutram or Pasuputadu….”
* ...Be that as it may, cruelty need not be physical. It can be mental cruelty making the life of husband miserable always with quarrel. Frequent desertion itself is sufficient cruelty to attract the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Mental cruelty itself is sufficient to cause greater injury and creates a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful and unsafe to live with her. The Court below has elaborately dealt with the aspect of the matter in paragraph 18 of its judgment and held that there is no reason for the wife to live away from her husband. The reasoning given by the Court below is cogent and convicing and does not call for interference in appeal…..
* …The respondent-husband deposed as P.W. 1 and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of his father who was examined as P. W. 2. There is no reason to discredit their evidence. From their evidence it is clear that the wife was treating her husband with cruelty and she never showed any affection towards him. She made his life miserable and therefore she is responsible for breaking down his family life. The learned Magistrate, who tried the maintenance case also came to the conclusion that the wife is responsible for breaking down the marriage. Therefore, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we find that the appellant-wife was responsible for the failure of the marriage, and that the respondent-husband has established that the appellant behaved cruelly towards him.
ANDHRA HIGH COURT
SMT. PARIMI MEHAR SESHU VS PARIMI NAGESWARA SASTRY
EQUIVALENT CITATIONS: AIR 1994 AP 92, 1993 (2) ALT 489, I (1994) DMC 417
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1KS
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#15: Beating MIL, taking MIL’s house, wife’s brother beating husband, false dowry statements, all are matrimonial cruelty ! Raj HC
In this classic case the poor woman, the beacon of love, beats her mother in law and drives her away from the matrimonial home to usurp her hard earned house, when husband is on a training !! The husband is also beaten and thrown out with the help of ablaa’s brother. Not contended with these she also raises false dowry allegations and resists divorce. The HC sees thru her game and decrees all such acts as cruelty !!
* Parties get married in 1985
* Mother in law is working as a staff nurse and has a house built on loan and her hard earned income
* Right from the start wife tries to take away Mother in law’s house.
* Wife beats Mother in law
* When husband goes out of city on training, wife and father in law, beat and drive away mother in law & father in law (husband’s mother & father)
* When husband goes to his (own mother’s house) , wife asks her brother to beat the husband & wife’s brother beats up husband and
* Then ablaa nari wife files Sec 125 maintenance case
* Looks like 498A was NOT famous those days, so she just stops with Sec 125 case and taking over the house !!
* husband files for divorce and wins in lower court
* wife appeals to HC and HC decrees that wife beating mother in law, wife’s brother beating husband, wife usurping MIL’s property and making false dowry claims etc are cruelty. The Hon Hc ALSO denies the woman any maintenance !!
Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Pramila Bhatia vs Vijay Kumar Bhatia
Equivalent citations: AIR 2000 Raj 363
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1L5
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#16: False 498a ending in acquittal is cruelty. No need 2 establish “malafide”. Divorce granted !! Bombay HC
False 498a that ends in acquittal is cruelty. No special finding by trial court needed to establish malafide intentions or intent to defame ! Divorce granted to husband & Wife’s RCR set aside. Spouses cannot be asked to live together after such cruelty. Bombay HC
The key question raised in this case is “…. “Whether for the act of filing complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, to amount to mental cruelty on the acquittal of husband and family, it is essential that judgment of acquittal must find that the complaint filed was false and with an intention to defame ? “
I.e. is a false 498a where husband & other accused are acquitted by itself gorunds for claiming cruelty or is there a need for the trial court to state that it was intentionally filed to defame the husband ?
* Marriage On or about 16th June, 2002
* VERY soon she starts her 498a ” …On 12th August, 2002, an FIR came to be lodged by the respondent under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 … appellant, his father, mother and brother. The appellant and his family members were arrested by the police …”
* On 21st December, 2002, the respondent (wife) files …. restitution of conjugal rights.
* On 5th September, 2005, the appellant (husband), his family members were acquitted 498a etc
* “…5. On 10th March, 2006, the appellant herein filed a …. praying for annulment of marriage and for divorce.…* * Civil judge dismisses husband’s petition and allows wifes RCR. Husband goes on appeal to the district judge who confirms the order of the civil judge. So husband goes on appeal to the high court
* The HC accepts the appeal and frames the important question ….“Whether for the act of filing complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, to amount to mental cruelty on the acquittal of husband and family, it is essential that judgment of acquittal must find that the complaint filed was false and with an intention to defame ? “
* the Hon HC notices and appreciates the fact that the trial court had “….It is held that the said deposition in the cross- examination for the first time about the alleged demand of dowry was an after thought. No incident had occurred from 16th June, 2002 to 21st June, 2002. It is held that it appeared to be improbable that on 21st June, 2002 after Pooja was performed, she was suddenly and forcibly asked to leave the matrimonial home.….” and the trial court had also noticed and mentioned that “…..25. It is held that the case of the respondent was not believable in view of the appellant and his family members giving gifts to the relatives of the respondent and in view of the delay on her part in lodging a complaint against the appellant and his family members…..”
* The Hon HC notices the fact that “…29. The Criminal Court while acquitting the appellant and his family members, after considering the evidence of six witnesses had rendered a positive finding that the complaint filed by the respondent was an after thought. …”
* After referring to a catena of HC and SC decisions the Hon HC concludes that “…In my opinion, filing of such complaint itself which create mental trauma on the husband and the complaint which was seriously prosecuted by the wife by leading evidence of several persons and bringing the said complaint to its logical conclusion which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the husband and his family members clearly amounted to the cruelty committed by the wife upon the husband.…”
* So the HON HC sets aside the RCR order in favour of the wife and decrees divorce in favour of the husband on frounds of cruelty !!
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SECOND APPEAL NO. 396 OF 2013 with SECOND APPEAL NO. 397 OF 2013
Anil Yashwant Karande Versus Smt. Mangal Anil Karande
Link : wp.me/p7s7-22l
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#17: Divorce WITHOUT alimony 4 False 498a where all acquited. Not necesary 4 trial court call 498A false. Bom HC
Hon Bom HC grants Divorce WITHOUT alimony following a wife’s 498a where all accused are acquitted. While the lower court denies divorce stating that the 498a ended in acquittal because the prosecution did not prove the case, the Hon HC says it is NOT necessary 4 trial court to call the 498A false. Cruelty is to be decided based on conduct of parties and allegations made !!
* The HC observes that the accused were dragged 56 times to the Trial court, and on many instances because the wife was just absent !
* The wife alleges that she started suffering arthritis becasue of ill treatment and her father died out of shock. But these allegations are NOT substantiated. The father dies some YEARS after the incidents !!
* The husband submits : “…..My family members and I had to seek leave from our job and had to remain present in the Court. My parents and me who are suffering from health problems like B.P., Eyesight problem, Piles (Father) also had to remain present and sit for hours together waiting for the Respondent to come or for the Honourable Judge to give the next date. All this has affected me mentally and physically. I have not been able to concentrate on my work owing to the health problems of my parents and the court case. My unmarried sister also had to come to the court, for no faults of hers. My brothers were unnecessary involved in this trauma, which they too had to undergo, without the remotest connection with this case. I state that the entire ordeal which went on for 3 years, has caused immense mental cruelty upon me…”
The Honourable court finally concludes that “…b) The Appellant and his family members were required to attend Criminal Court on 56 different dates from the year 2001 to 2004. Considering the manner in ash 25 fca-71.06 which the criminal case proceeded, the Appellant and his family members were subjected to humiliation, trauma and agony as set out in the deposition of the Appellant;
(c) The Respondent made a very serious defamatory allegation against the Appellant, both in the written statement and in her evidence, that due to ill-treatment by the Appellant, she started suffering from arthritis. The Respondent made no efforts to substantiate the said allegation. Thus, the Respondent made unfounded defamatory allegation against the Appellant;
(d) The Respondent made another serious allegation against the Appellant,both in the written statement and in her evidence, that due to harassment suffered by her from the Appellant, her father suffered shock which lead to his death. Not only that the Respondent did not substantiate the said allegation, even the cause of death of her father was not brought on record. Even this allegation is an unfounded defamatory allegation;
We have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid conduct amounts to mental cruelty to the Appellant and by reason of such mental cruelty, he is not reasonably expected to continue cohabitation with the Respondent…”
and grants the husband divorce. The court ALSO refuses to grant ANY alimony to the wife !!
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.71 OF 2006
Mr. M Vs Mrs. M
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-22G
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#18 : Filing false 498a, taking away children illegaly, interfering with their education is ALL cruelty. Divorce granted 2 hubby, Cal HC
Wife files 498a. After compromise, parties get back / live together. Still wife does NOT withdraw / quash criminal complaint ! So parties ultimately separate. However wife raises a false claim of living with husband many months after 498a (i.e.) AS IF her conduct was condoned by the husband ! Husband applies for divorce. Initially it is refused believing wife’s false statements that her cruelty was condoned by husband. On review, Cal HC appreciates the facts and orders divorce
The Honourable court says that a 498a instituted and kept alive on false allegations in itself amounts to cruelty “….the very fact that the complaint under Section 498A IPC lodged by the wife has still being kept alive and surviving containing certain allegations which have not been proved, in itself is a sufficient ground to hold that there was cruelty at the time of institution of the suit and on account of its continuance till the decree and the decision under review and even today, …”
The wife at one point tries to escape saying “Fact that I filed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC against my husband. My lawyer drafted the petition and designed it according to his estimation under Section 498A IPC. I shall not examine that lawyer. Of late I have come to know that my case under Section 498A IPC against my husband is now alive.” But the Hon HC refuses to accept that contention as she has affirmed her complaints in MANY other places
The court notices that she is blowing hot and cold in many places
The court observes that “There are evidence on record that the wife used to take away the children, for which the husband had to file application under Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC) …”
The court also takes the interference with the education of children seriously “….. It is an admitted position that the son’s education was interrupted so long the son lived with the wife. It is only after persuasion by us she had agreed to allow the child to have good education and the father had admitted him in a good school in terms of our order passed on 3rd of March, 2005. This interference with the child’s educations also constitutes a mental cruelty.….”
so the court concludes “…he totality of the evidence of the wife clearly shows that she was not telling the truth and telling different things at different times. This eroded the reliability of her evidence. ….”
Calcutta High Court
Pranab Kumar Chakraborty vs Kumkum Chakraborty on 5 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2006) 1 CALLT 210 HC, 2005 (4) CHN 146
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-24l
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#19 : False 498a, falsely alleging that she was forced to sleep with father in law , writing to employer to get husband dismissed etc are cruelty. Divorce granted. Need not stay long, to treat cruelly. Clear case of 498a misuse
Marriage solemnised in 1999. Fight starts immediately after marriage and wife leaves for parental house JUST 1 day after marriage. She promptly files a false dowry case saying husband and co sought 10 lakhs dowry and also alleges that her mother in law asked her to sleep with father in law. After initial compromise on the false dowry case, police make a closure report, but ablaa naari goes to court and gets the dowry case numbered !! Meanwhile husband files for divorce and wife wants restitution! Yeah, she wants restitution! Husband is granted divorce by family court. Wife goes on appeal to HC (against family court decree). In the meanwhile husband looses 498a at magistrate court and immediately wife writes to husband’s office (i.e.) AP High court to remove him from his job! Husband wins appeal on 498a case at Sessions court and wife goes on appeal before AP HC which is not yet finished!
Supreme court appreciates the entire case and decrees (a) marriage broken down as parties have been completely living apart (b) various cases filed by wife are cruelty (c) wife NEED NOT have physically lived with husband to create cruelty and grants divorce to husband …
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1794 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007)
SRINIVAS RAO Versus D.A. DEEPA
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1Iw
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#20 : Even ONE false criminal complaint by wife constitutes matrimonial cruelty, hence Divorce allowed !!
Wife files a criminal complaint u/s 307 read with 34, 148A, 384, 324 of IPC. Husband and seven members of his family were arrested ! It is argued before the SC that this was a solitary criminal complaint and so cannot be cruelty ! However the Hon Sc concludes that Even ONE false criminal complaint by wife constitutes matrimonial cruelty, hence Divorce allowed !!
* The marriage at Hyderabad on 11th February, 1989.
* Male child born on 8th May, 1991, after which the Respondent-Wife, as per her pleadings, started suffering from Sheehan’s syndrome.
* On the night of 29th/30th June, 1995, wife left the matrimonial house and ever since then she has been living with her brother, who is a senior IAS officer.
* On 14th July, 1995, husband filed an original petition praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as of the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage.
* Wife retorted by filing a criminal complaint against the Appellant as well as seven members of his family for offences under Section 307 read with Sections 34, 148A, 384, 324 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
* The Appellant-Husband and seven of his family members were arrested and incarcerated.
* On 30th June, 2000, the Learned Vth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, acquitted the Appellant and his family members, and this Order has attained finality.
* The Honourable supreme court concludes that “…We unequivocally find that the Respondent-Wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty…”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1213 OF 2006
K.SRINIVAS vs K. SUNITA
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1Am
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#21: Unsubstantiated allegations of the wife tantamount to cruelty ! Bombay HC
Wife makes character assassination on the husband and repeats them in her WS before the lower court
* “….the wife had leveled allegations about relations of the husband with one lady by name Yamuna Adalkar….”
* “…even in the cross-examination, the wife has reiterated her stand about the husband having relations with the lady of the different caste. …wife had levelled allegations against the husband about the ilicit relations with Yamuna and that she has not proved those allegations….”
* “… on account of surrender of the premises at Pimpri Gaon by the wife without knowledge and consent of the husband, the husband was deprived of the said premises for no reason particularly when he wanted to retain the premises…..”
and so on
The Hon HC concludes
“…….we are inclined to observe that the unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the wife in the written statement as well as in her evidence as also evidence of her father amounted to mental cruelty as the wife has failed to prove those allegations by examining appropriate witness in support of the said allegations. In our view, the bare word of the wife or her father Haribhau, DW-2 who is treated by us as an interested witness, is not sufficient to accept that the wife has made good the allegations against the husband. The allegations are certainly serious and the husband is bound to undergo mental pain, agony and suffering. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, we hold that the husband has been able to prove that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty…..”
Bombay High Court
Ramesh Laxman Sonawane vs Mrs Meenaxi Ramesh Sonawane
Link : wp.me/p7s7-1ml
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#22: 498a arrest + publishing allegations + writing to superiors are cruelty. Dvrc granted. All HC
excerpts of SIMPLE ACTIONS by ablaa : “….On 27th July, 2007 itself a first information report was lodged by the wife against the husband, his parents, his sister and brother-in-law under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on which Case Crime No.601 of 2007 was registered. The respondent was arrested by the police and remained in jail for 12 days …… A news publication was published on 28th July, 2007 in the Hindi Daily Newspapers “Amar Ujala” and “Dainik Jagaran” mentioning about the arrest of the respondent on the allegation of demand of dowry. The appellant also gave an interview to the news channel “Sahara Samay” along with her parents making allegation on respondent and his entire family. The wife also wrote a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar dated 12th August, 2007 informing lodging of first information report and making allegations of demand of dowry against the respondent and his family members. ….
“… complaint was also sent by the appellant to the Finance Secretary, Government of Uttrakhand informing about the F.I.R. … appellant informed her father on mobile that the respondent and family members are making plan to kill the appellant after which father of the appellant came with the police and took away the appellant from her in-laws house to their house at Allahpur. The complaint sent to the Finance Secretary was also sent to all administrative officers of Uttrakhand and Uttar Pradesh. …………………….”
The court appreciates the facts and adds “…here cannot be any denial to the fact that every person can take recourse of law if any offence is committed to him. Right to lodge a first information report or to take such legal action as permissible under the law cannot be denied. However, in facts of the present case we have to examine as to whether action taken by the wife and acts done by her within less than six months of the marriage are the action which gives reasonable apprehension in the mind of husband that it is not safe to live with wife any more. “
“…However, it was admitted to the wife also in her cross examination that she filed various complaints against the husband before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, Finance Secretary, Uttrakhand and Director (Treasury). The wife was confronted with the said letters in her cross examination and she admitted sending of those complaints. The wife in her written statement as well as statement has continued with leveling allegations against the husband and her family members…..”
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. – 175 of 2010
Smt. Ruchita Srivastava Vs Vivek Swaroop
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1k4
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#23: Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli – Cruelty defined, SCC of India
The Honorable SC lists the acts of the wife and concludes that their marital life has become a living hell !
1. The wife filed FIR No. 100/96 at Police Station, Kohna under Sections 379/323 IPC
2. The wife got a case registered under Sections 323/324 registered in the police station Panki, Kanpur City.
3. At the behest of the wife FIR No.156 of 1996 was also filed in the police station, Panki.
4. The wife filed FIR under Section 420/468 IPC at the Police Station, Kotwali.
5. The wife got a case registered under Section under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 IPC.
6. The wife filed a complaint against the appellant under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC at Police Station, Kohna.
7. The wife had even gone to the extent of opposing the bail application of the appellant in criminal case filed at the police station, Kotwali
8. When police filed final report in two criminal cases at police station, Kotwali and police station, Kohna, the wife filed protest petition in these cases.
9. The wife filed complaint no.125 of 1998 in the Women Cell, Delhi in September 1997 against the appellant’s lawyer and friend alleging criminal intimidation, which turned out to be false
10. The wife filed a complaint under sections 397/398 before the Company Law Board, New Delhi, calling the husband a liar, cheat, womaniser etc
11. The wife filed a complaint in Case No.1365 0f 1988 against the husband
12. Again on 8.7.1999, the wife filed a complaint in the Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi and made all efforts to get the husband arrested.
13. On 31.3.1999, the wife have sent a notice for breaking the Nucleus of the HUF.
14. The wife filed a complaint against the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
15. The wife had withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/- from the bank account of the husband in a clandestine manner.
16. On 22.1.01 the wife gave affidavit before the High Court and got non-bailable warrants issued against the husband
17. The wife got an advertisement issued in a national newspaper that the husband was only her employee. She got another news item issued cautioning the business associates to avoid dealing with the appellant.
the Honorable court observes “…Even at this stage, the wife does not want divorce by mutual consent. From the analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, it is clear that the wife has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the husband as well. This type of adamant and callous attitude, in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the wife is bent upon treating the appellant with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again…”
In a strongly worded statement the court concludes “…In view of the fact that the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years and a very large number of aforementioned criminal and civil proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the appellant and some proceedings have been initiated by the appellant against the respondent, the matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. To keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to the public interest than a dissolution of the marriage bond…..”
Supreme Court of India
Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli
Link : https://t.co/YenUftF724
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#24: Criminal case BEFORE marriage, criminal case AFTER marriage! Man & parents arrested. Divorce by Bom HC
Live-in woman uses Dowry case b4 marriage, to rope in man, forcing him to marry her. She then promptly Files a IPC 498a (cruelty to wife case) after marriage again! Husband and parents are arrested !! She goes on appeal against husband’s divorce. Bom HC grants divorce to hubby.
In this case a woman in a live in relationship files two criminal cases on a man (one under DP act stating that he demanded dowry and a second under sec 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. She threatens the man to marry her, failing which she will prosecute him. The poor guy agrees to marry the woman and she also compromises and closes those cases !!
After becoming his wife, she again files 498A etc and has him and his parents arrested !! The man is acquitted in these 498A cases by the trial court and in two appeals one at sessions and one at the High court itself
The man files for Divorce and is granted divorce by the civil judge, but due to appeals the case finally lands at the Hon Bombay HC. The HC appreciates the fact that the woman has filed false cases and treated the man with cruelty. The Hon HC grants divorce to the man even though the trial court has NOT specifically mentioned that 498A filed by the woman is false
Inter alia, the Hon HC notices that “…33. A perusal of the orders passed in the criminal proceedings clearly indicates that the appellant and his family members were arrested in view of the complaint filed by the respondent under section498-A read with 34 of IPC and were subsequently released on board. It further indicates that the appellant and his family members were not acquitted based of any benefit of doubt given to them but were acquitted on the ground that the complaints filed by the respondent was totally vague and the allegations therein were not proved. …’
and in the matter of the civil (divorce) case filed by the husband, the Hon HC states “… A perusal of the order passed by the lower appellant Court however, indicates that the lower appellate Court has taken a very casual approach by totally ignoring the effect of the order of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court….”
Appreciating the entire factual matrix, the Hon orders Divorce on grounds of cruelty !
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SECOND APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2013
Shri Mangesh Balkrushna Bhoir Versus…. Sau. Leena Mangesh Bhoir
Link : wp.me/p7s7-22V
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#25: Wife alleges Husband had illicit relations with own sister, abuse him at office, deserts him, stops him seeing own son. Decreed wife cruel. divorce granted
* Marriage in on 17.06.1990
* Couple live together for three months and wife goes back to parental home on 12.09.1990
* Then she returns back, stays for less than a year and finally leaves husband “….Rita again returned to her father’s house at Chinsurah on 26.05.1993 and at that time she was pregnant. Rita gave birth to a male child on 31.12.1993. Admittedly, Rita thereafter never returned to her matrimonial home. In the month of march, 1994 ….”
* Husband files Matrimonial suit in 1994 alleging cruelty.
* Wife alleges Husband had illicit relations with many women, had illicit relations with own sister, goes to his office and abuses him at his office, deserts him, stops him seeing own son in spite of court order.
* Court appreciates depositions and evidence and decrees that wife treated husband cruelly. Divorce granted accordingly by HC.
* So, Husband wins at Calcutta HC on 15th June, 2015, i.e. It takes approx 21 years after desertion and its just at High court !
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
F.A. No. 312 of 2007
Rita Bandopadhyay -vs- Abhik Bandopadhyay
Link : wp.me/p7s7-1HL
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#26: Wife ALLEGES husband had ILLICIT relations with his OWN MOTHER; starves husband, insults and makes character assassination of father in law; husband granted divorce on grounds of cruelty ! MADRAS HC
This is a case where cruelty is well analyzed, should be of use to husbands fighting cases on the basis of cruelty by wife.
* wife insults husband often, seeks separate house, leaves husband hungry and stranded
* On one occasion to force the husband to get a car she is alleged to have threatened to kill the child by throwing the child from the terrace
* wife makes a written complaint with such henious allegations of illicit relationships but tries to turn turtle at HC and deny her own wrongdoing
* wife is cross examined and truth comes out
* divorce granted on the grounds of cruelty
* wife granted permanent alimony probably because she has a daughter and the amount is quite small considering that the husband is supposed to be in an important post with Airport Authority of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.M.A.No.2148 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
P.Nirmala Vs. K.Muruguselvam
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1rb
**********************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#27: FALSE Allegations of Illicit Relations with “bhabhi” (sister in law), ill treatment at office in front of colleagues etc are cruelty; Husband granted Divorce on grounds of cruelty ; Himachal HC
“….21. The evidence on record leaves no doubt in my mind that the appellant has been subjected to constant mental cruelty by the respondent more especially her allegations of sexual misbehaviour and mis-conduct against the appellant accusing him of having illicit sexual relations with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi), for consideration, who is treating him like a younger brother. The evidence, clearly points out to the fact that the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty within the meaning of the Act. In terms of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh’s case, I am satisfied that not only has the marriage broken down irretrievably because of the acts on the part of the respondent, and it is not possible for the appellant to live in an atmosphere which is vitiated and surcharged by allegations of adultery etc. Indian Society is sensitive to the relationships of brother and sister and mother and son which are not only respected but venerated. There has been no cohabitation between the parties since 1982.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Sharma vs Smt. Akash Sharma on 1 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 HP 78, 2008 (1) ShimLC 399
Link : t.co/58Huz9hn6Z
********************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#28: Refusal to Cohabit, unilateral decision of not having children after marriage, humiliating husband, practically throwing him out of his apartment, cooking only for herself, not attending to husband during & after his heart by pass surgery, ill treating and throwing out house servant, and all similar acts are matrimonial cruelty ! Landmark case of Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya Ghosh !!
Honourable Supreme court summarises matrimonial cruelty in a set of paragraphs which have almost become the guiding principles on the matter ever since. These key paragraphs are repeated here
“….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. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/
(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.
(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 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……”
Supreme Court of India
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 151 of 2004
Link : wp.me/p7s7-1sj
***************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#29: Wife files 3 criminal cases against husband during pendancy of husband’s divorce case. 10 people are accused in that 498a including siblings, sisters husband, uncles wife etc. all are acquitted. Madras HC appreciates the fact of the cacse grants husband divorce on grounds of cruelty !!
* Wife files false 498a etc on husband and 9 of his relatives
* Wife also files missing person case on husband when he had to leave her because of her cruelty and terror
* Wife aborts kid and blames husband
* Though husband looses case at lower court, Madras HC appreciates the fact and grants him divorce
Madras High Court
R. Anand vs P. Indu on 26 November, 2007
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-hs
***************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#30:Cruelty & desertion by wife, irretrivable break down, husband’s dvrc affirmed – Supreme court
Cornerstone case discussing (a) cruelty by wife (b) desertion (c) many years elapsing between separation and case, so marriage irretreivably broken AND the husband having re married some years BEFORE the case reaching the Supreme Court… so Husband’s divorce decree as granted by the Trial court, as affirmed by the Hon High court also affirmed by the Hon Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3930 of 2002
PARVEEN MEHTA Vs. INDERJIT MEHTA
Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-6a
**************************************************
Cruelty&Divorce#31: False case of 406 that is not pursued, false allegations of illicit relations with other women, venereal disease etc which are NOT proven are matrimonial cruelty. Wife files 498a, 406 knowing that the husband is a govt servant and has to run for bail. Divorce granted to Husband. Maintenance to son ONLY if son comes and stays with father at least once a week. CAL HC GEM !!
In this important case, the Hon HC orders "....in a matrimonial suit, even if the plaintiff is unable to prove the allegations of cruelty pleaded in the plaint, a Court is entitled to grant a decree for divorce if it appears that the defendant in the written statement has made unfounded allegations of bad moral character of the plaintiff which are proved to be baseless and for that reason, the plaint is not required to be amended incorporating an assertion that those allegations are baseless....."
"...In her written statement, she alleged adultery against her husband and pressed the same in evidence. Such fact has been denied by the husband. She in her written statement alleged that the husband was suffering from venereal diseases and that she would apply for examination of the husband by a doctor. The husband in her examination-in-chief denied such fact and thereafter, the wife did not utter anything about such allegation in her examination-in-chief and also did not pray for medical examination of the husband...."
"...From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the wife in spite of making serious allegations against the husband involving moral character did not even try to prove such fact by bringing the witnesses who could throw light on the veracity of the allegations. We are quite alive to the position of law that mere inability on the part of the defendant to prove the allegations contained in the written statement does not authorise the matrimonial court to pass a decree for divorce on the ground that those allegations were baseless; but if the defendant, in spite of availability of the competent witnesses to lend support to the allegations, decides not to examine them without just cause, the Court is entitled to presume that those allegations were baseless by drawing adverse presumption for not producing the best evidence available to her...."
