Divorce granted to husband on Grounds of cruelty, Desertion
and False criminal Cases and Adultery.
“The contention of the husband was that the appellant was in
the habit of quarrelling with him on petty issues without any cause and reason
and had even refused to prepare food for him and do the household chores. She
also humiliated him in the presence of his friends on several occasions by
refusing to serve them tea. The appellant never wanted to stay with him or his
parents at the village and always used to force him to drop her at her parental
home; she did not have any love and affection for him and his parents; that the
appellant had also pressurised him to leave the job and settle down in Delhi;
he bought a land in Burari and constructed two storey house from his savings
but the appellant preferred staying in her parental home at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi and
used to come to their newly constructed house once a week. The husband had all
along supported the appellant and their children financially as well as
morally. When the construction of the house was completed, the appellant had
refused to live with him at the place of his posting. She also forced her
mother-in-law to leave the house who thereafter started living in her native
village. She used to say that "yeh log hamare status kay neie hain."
On these facts, the respondent/husband had alleged that he
had suffered severe mental agony, tension, harassment and distress and that the
behaviour of the appellant had caused him great anguish and amounted to
cruelty. He had alleged that the appellant had also deserted him since she had
refused to live with him. He had also averred that they had been living
separately since March 2006 and it was not possible for him to continue living
with her since there was a danger to his life and limb.
The first contention of the appellant is that the learned
Family Court has given undue weightage to the evidence of the respondent and
has discarded the evidence of the appellant. However, this contention has no
merit. On the contrary, the evidence on record (including that of the
appellant) was duly considered and distinguished and elaborately discussed in
the impugned judgment and only thereafter the conclusion was drawn. Record
shows that the appellant had examined herself alone in support of her pleas but
here is no corroboration to her testimony. Several contradictions in her
testimony have been discussed in the impugned judgment. Even otherwise, the
burden to prove that the respondent/husband was subjected to cruelty by the
appellant, was upon him and it was for him to discharge the same by leading
cogent evidence.
The settled
proposition of law in civil proceedings is that the principle of proof of a
fact is established on a preponderance of possibility and the
respondent/husband is not required to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the evidences on record points out to the existence of a particular fact, then the said fact can be
accepted as having been proved. We may note that the expression
"cruelty" has not been defined under the HMA. Cruelty can be mental
or physical. It is easy for a party to prove physical cruelty, but mental
cruelty depends on various factors.
. In the case of G.V.N. Kameswara Rao vs. G. Jabilli
reported at (2002) 2 SSC 296, the Supreme Court had observed that false police
complaints would result in mental cruelty as it leads to loss of reputation and
standing in the society at the instance of one's spouse. The act of leveling of
unsubstantiated charges of adultery against the husband not only during the
stay of the spouses together, but also during the divorce proceedings was
treated as an act of cruelty on the part of the wife.
In R. Balasubramanian vs.
Vijaylakshmi Balsubramanian (SMT) reported at (1999) 7 SCC 311, the Supreme
Court held that an
unfounded allegation of adultery is a serious allegation
amounting to cruel conduct, and found that these factors cumulatively proved
cruelty on the part of the appellant therein for entitling the husband to
dissolution of the marriage.
In the case titled
Santosh Sahay vs. Hanuman Sahay reported as 2016 IX AD (Delhi) 1, a Division
Bench of this Court has held that false character assassination and allegations
of such a nature made by a spouse amounts to mental cruelty and the wronged
spouse is entitled to seek divorce on that ground.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.)
95/2017, CM No. 19921/2017, CM No. 19923/2017
SANTOSH ..... Appellant
Through:
Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, Advocate
along with Mr. Jaswinder Singh,
Advocate along with appellant in
person.
versus
HORI LAL ..... Respondent
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the
order dated 31.03.2017 passed by Principal Judge (Family Court), Tis Hazari,
Delhi whereby her marriage with the respondent was dissolved under Section 13
(1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as
"HMA").
2. As per the admitted facts, the marriage between the
appellant and the respondent was solemnized in Delhi on 29.06.1993, according
to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The
marriage was consummated and two children, one female and one male child were
born from out of this wedlock. The respondent has been working with the Border
Road Organization and at all times, has remained posted at different border
areas of the country.
3. The petition for divorce was filed by the respondent
(hereinafter referred to as "respondent/husband"). The case of the
husband was that the marriage was very simple and after the marriage, he took
the appellant to the matrimonial home at Village Bhopal Garhi Post Kurhar
Distt, Etah, UP and stayed there for about 40 days. When he left for his duty,
he left the appellant at her parental home on her request. After some time, the
appellant joined him at his place of posting at Arunachal Pradesh where they
stayed happily. She became pregnant and insisted upon the respondent/husband
that she will deliver the first child at her parental home at Delhi and so, he
brought her to Delhi and left her at her parental home. A female child was born
on 29.03.1994. After about two months i.e. in May 1994, he took the appellant
to his place of posting i.e. Arunachal Pradesh along with the minor daughter.
The second child was born on 04.05.2002.
4. The contention of the husband was that the appellant was
in the habit of quarrelling with him on petty issues without any cause and
reason and had even refused to prepare food for him and do the household
chores. She also humiliated him in the presence of his friends on several
occasions by refusing to serve them tea. The appellant never wanted to stay
with him or his parents at the village and always used to force him to drop her
at her parental home; she did not have any love and affection for him and his
parents; that the appellant had also pressurised him to leave the job and
settle down in Delhi; he bought a land in Burari and constructed two storey
house from his savings but the appellant preferred staying in her parental home
at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi and used to come to their newly constructed house once a
week. The husband had all along supported the appellant and their children
financially as well as morally. When the construction of the house was
completed, the appellant had refused to live with him at the place of his
posting. She also forced her mother-in-law to leave the house who thereafter
started living in her native village. She used to say that "yeh log hamare
status kay neie hain."
5. The husband had referred to the incidents that took place
in February 2006, which ultimately culminated in their separation. He alleged
that on MAT.APP.(F.C) 95/2017 Page 3 26.02.2006, he had informed the appellant,
on telephone, at around 8 p.m. that his father was unwell and that he was
taking leave to visit him and asked her to accompany him to the village.
However, once he reached Delhi, the appellant refused to accompany him to the
village. She also refused to join him at his place of posting along with the
children. She and her parents beat him on his visit to her parental home. He
visited his house at Burari on 04.03.2006 where the appellant and her parents
quarrelled with him and registered a false case against him under Section
107/150 of CrPC. He left for his village on 05.03.2006 and returned to Delhi on
07.03.2006 and went to his house at Burari and found that the appellant had
removed all the household goods and had filed a false complaint under Section
498A/406/34 of IPC before Crime against Women Cell after 13 years of their
marriage, alleging inter alia that he had demanded dowry of Rs. 35.00 lakhs.
The respondent/husband was arrested in the FIR No. 61/2006 on 04.04.2006 and
remained in judicial custody for about 20 days. With the help of police, the
appellant removed the remaining articles from his house at Burari. She also
removed all the jewellery lying in the locker at State Bank of India, Pratap
Nagar, Delhi on 06.03.2006. She also filed several civil and criminal cases
against him and his relatives on false and frivolous MAT.APP.(F.C) 95/2017 Page
4 grounds, just to harass and torture the husband. The appellant did all this
with the intention of extracting more money from him and his relatives. Details
in this respect have been furnished by the husband in para No. 15 of his
petition. It was also averred that she had filed various complaints against the
husband in different departments and authorities, which on investigation, were
found to be false and baseless and that she had been making defamatory
complaints against him and his family members.
6. On these facts, the respondent/husband had alleged that
he had suffered severe mental agony, tension, harassment and distress and that
the behaviour of the appellant had caused him great anguish and amounted to
cruelty. He had alleged that the appellant had also deserted him since she had
refused to live with him. He had also averred that they had been living
separately since March 2006 and it was not possible for him to continue living
with her since there was a danger to his life and limb.
7. The suit was contested by the appellant who filed her
written statement wherein she had denied all the averments in the plaint, being
false. She had further averred that she was forced to withdraw the FIR and
other proceedings filed by her under compelling circumstances and since she did
not want to take divorce from the husband, she did not file any suit
MAT.APP.(F.C) 95/2017 Page 5 for divorce and that the respondent was taking
undue advantage of his own wrong doings and that of his parents, sisters and
brother-in-law. Her contention was that it was she, who had been treated with
utmost cruelty by the husband and his family members. Her husband failed to
maintain her and their two children and they were at the mercy of her father
for day-to- day necessities and their school fees was also paid by her father.
As per her version, their marriage was solemnised with great pomp and show and
her parents had spent lakhs of rupees on their marriage and dowry articles,
gifts and cash was given in the marriage which did not satisfy the husband and
his family members who kept on raising demands and started harassing and
treating her with cruelty, forcing her to fulfil their demands for brining
additional dowry and cash amounts.
8. The appellant claimed that the respondent/husband
demanded a Santro car on 28.02.2006 which her parents failed to provide. This
refusal enraged the husband. He and his brother asked her to sign on certain
blank papers and on her refusal to do so, and in view of the inability of her
parents to provide a new Santro car, the respondent/husband got so infuriated
that he did not allow her to enter the house. She was beaten by him and his
other relatives and sustained injuries. She admitted that she MAT.APP.(F.C)
95/2017 Page 6 had filed a complaint under Section 107/150 of the CrPC against
him and his family members on 04.03.2006. It was also contended that she was
forced to live in Delhi with her parents because husband refused to keep her at
the place of his posting for the reason best known to him.
9. It was further averred by the appellant that she had been
fulfilling all the obligations as a devoted wife and had always remained
faithful to the respondent; she was always ready and willing to accompany the
respondent/husband to his native village to look after her ailing father-in-
law but he had refused to take her along with him to the village. On 04.03.2006
when she was beaten up, she had been medically examined. It was contended that
it was her father who had purchased plot no. 55, Block A, Gali No. 8/1, Kaushik
Enclave Swaroop Nagar Road, Burari, Delhi measuring 100 square yards in her
name and constructed double storeyed house over it; that the husband had
fraudulently procured her signatures on a General Power of Attorney executed in
his favour and sold the house first to his brother, Sh. Bhopal Singh on
08.03.2006 and thereafter, to Mr. Satish Sisodia for a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/-
and mis-appropriated the sale proceeds. The appellant urged that the
respondent/husband could not be allowed to MAT.APP.(F.C) 95/2017 Page 7 take
advantage of his own wrong and thus, was not entitled for a decree of divorce.
10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, on
26.08.2009, the learned Trial Court had framed the following issues:-
"(1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner
with cruelty? (OPP)
(2) Whether the
respondent has deserted the petitioner for a period of more than two years
before the filing of the present petition? (OPP)
(3) Relief."
11. Both the parties had led their evidence. The respondent/husband
had examined five witnesses in support of his case. In his statement, the
petitioner/husband proved on record, the complaints filed by the appellant
against him and marked as A to E. He also summoned a witness from the bank to
prove that locker bearing no. 192 in the joint name of the parties was lastly
operated by the appellant on 06.03.2006. The said record was exhibited by the
witness as Ex.PW 2/1 to Ex. PW 2/5. The appellant, however, examined herself
alone in support of her case. After hearing the parties at length and
considering the evidences on record, the learned Trial Court reached the
conclusion that the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty and that
she had deserted him without any just cause and resultantly, dissolved their
marriage. Hence the present appeal.
12. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the
grounds that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence
on record and did not take into consideration the torture and the harassment
she was subjected to; that reliance on the evidence of the respondent and
rejection of the testimony of the appellant is unfounded; that the learned
Family Court failed to consider the contradictions in the testimony of the respondent
and the fact that the husband has not been able to produce any corroborative
evidence to prove the allegations levelled by him against the appellant; that
the Family Court failed to take into account the fact that it was the
respondent who had treated the appellant with cruelty and, therefore, he cannot
be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong in view of the provisions of
Section 23 of HMA. It was also contended by Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for
the appellant that the learned Family Court has wrongly granted divorce on the
ground that the marriage between them has broken down because no such ground is
available for divorce under the HMA. It is therefore prayed that the impugned
judgment being illegal, perverse and contrary to law, is liable to be set
aside.
13. We have heard the arguments addressed by learned counsel
for the appellant and gone through the LCR which includes the pleadings and
evidence of the parties.
14. The first contention of the appellant is that the
learned Family Court has given undue weightage to the evidence of the
respondent and has discarded the evidence of the appellant. However, this
contention has no merit. On the contrary, the evidence on record (including
that of the appellant) was duly considered and distinguished and elaborately
discussed in the impugned judgment and only thereafter the conclusion was
drawn. Record shows that the appellant had examined herself alone in support of
her pleas but here is no corroboration to her testimony. Several contradictions
in her testimony have been discussed in the impugned judgment. Even otherwise,
the burden to prove that the respondent/husband was subjected to cruelty by the
appellant, was upon him and it was for him to discharge the same by leading
cogent evidence.
15. The settled proposition of law in civil proceedings is
that the principle of proof of a fact is established on a preponderance of
possibility and the respondent/husband is not required to prove his case beyond
a reasonable doubt. If the evidences on record points out to the existence of
MAT.APP.(F.C) 95/2017 Page 10 a particular fact, then the said fact can be
accepted as having been proved. We may note that the expression
"cruelty" has not been defined under the HMA. Cruelty can be mental
or physical. It is easy for a party to prove physical cruelty, but mental
cruelty depends on various factors.
16. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh reported at (2007) 4 SCC
511 while dealing with the concept of mental cruelty, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
"99. The human mind is extremely complex and human
behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound;
therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost
impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in the other
case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his
upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background,
financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs,
human values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot
remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern
culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may
be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time
or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters
for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and
appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar
facts and circumstances...."
17. Further, in Ravi Kumar vs. Julmidevi reported at (2010)
4 SCC 476, the Supreme Court held that cruelty is to be judged from the
behavior, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and observed that:-
"20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies
any definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the husband is
cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and
judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given
case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases
can be of infinite variety--it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by
gestures and words..."
(emphasis supplied)
18. Therefore, there is no mathematical formula to assess
cruelty. If the consistent behaviour of a spouse is of such a nature as to
causes pain, discomfort or it brings disrespect or disrepute to the other
spouse, such behavior would constitute cruelty. Trust, mutual respect,
understanding and commitment sustain a marriage. When two persons live together
in matrimony, it is expected that they will be tolerant towards each other's
attitude, behaviours, moods etc. and not be over sensitive towards innocent and
natural behaviour/attitude or stray mood swings of the spouse.
Spouses are expected to be supportive of each others' needs
and MAT.APP.(F.C) 95/2017 Page 12 requirements which includes extending due
respect to the family members of the spouse.
19. While appreciating the evidence in such matters, in Deb
Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder reported at (2003) 11 SCC 303, the Supreme
Court held that Courts should rely on evidence, which is contemporaneous and
observed as under:-
20.....In cases where there is a dispute between husband and
wife it is very difficult to unravel the true reason for the dispute. After
separation when the relationship turns sour, all sorts of allegations and
counter allegations are made against each other. Evidence of contemporaneous
nature therefore plays an important role in such cases as it may reveal the
thinking and attitude of the parties towards each other at the relevant time.
Such evidence is usually found in the form of letters written by the parties to
each other or to their friends and relatives or recorded in any other document
of contemporaneous nature. If really the respondent was subjected to cruelty
and harassment in the manner alleged by her, we have no doubt she would have
written about such treatment to her friends and relatives with whom she may
have corresponded..."
(emphasis supplied)
20. The evidence brought on record clearly reveals that the
parties got married on 29.06.1993 and from the period from 1993 to 2001, the
appellant had been staying with the husband at the place of his posting and she
was visiting her parents in Delhi during this period. The husband was employed
in the Border Road Organization and was posted to different MAT.APP.(F.C)
95/2017 Page 13 places outside Delhi including Arunachal Pradesh. The appellant
had stayed with him at those places but she had not written any letter even to
her parents, complaining about the misbehaviour of the respondent. There
appears no dispute between them during their entire stay at the places of
posting, as no complaint of any nature had been filed by the appellant before
any authority in this regard. It is also evident that the appellant did not
produce any document which could suggest that she had any complaint of any
nature against the respondent during her stay with him.
21. During this entire period, till the filing of the
complaint of demand of dowry under Section 498 A IPC, no complaint of any
nature has been placed on record by the appellant against the respondent. The
evidence also shows that the appellant started living in the Burari house since
the year 2001 and during this period, the respondent had been visiting her in
that house. The appellant has also failed to prove that it was her father who
purchased the property in her name. No document has been produced on record by
the appellant to prove that she was the registered owner of the property and it
was sold by the respondent by fraudulently obtaining her signatures on a Power
of Attorney. No document was also produced on record to prove that the
construction undertaken over the plot was raised by MAT.APP.(F.C) 95/2017 Page
14 her father. During the existence of a marriage of about 13 years, no
complaint of demand of dowry was ever lodged by the appellant against the
respondent or his family members.
22. Apparently, the dispute between the parties arose
sometime in March 2006. The appellant has not disputed that in March 2006, the
respondent wanted to visit his ailing father at the village and he did visit
him. While respondent/husband contends that it was the appellant who had
refused to accompany him, the appellant took the plea that he did not take her
along, which she had failed to substantiate by leading any evidence. The
appellant has not produced any substantive evidence in support of her
contention that she had been visiting her in-laws in the village. On the
contrary, the evidence on record clearly shows that whenever she was in Delhi,
she used to reside with her parents. Although she has contended that the
respondent was not providing her money towards her maintenance and that of
their children and it was her father who was bearing all the expenses during
her stay in the Burari house, she has not produced any evidence to prove that
the school fees of the children was being paid by her father. In fact, she has
failed to examine her father. It is also a fact that the appellant never made
any complaint to anyone including the respondent's department MAT.APP.(F.C)
95/2017 Page 15 to the effect that he was not giving them any money for their
subsistence, nor had she filed any case claiming maintenance from him. There is
no contemporaneous evidence on record which can even remotely suggest that the
respondent had demanded dowry and that he and his family members had beaten the
appellant or that he was not taking care of her and children and was not
providing financial support to them.
23. The other plea of the appellant is that her husband and
his family members used to demand dowry and harass her and had demanded a
Santro car on 04.06.2006 and, on refusal, beaten her and turned her out of the
house, thus compelling her to file a complaint under Section 498A. It turns out
that the husband was discharged in the said case under Section 498A IPC, which
only goes to show that there was no substance in the allegations made by the
appellant in her complaint under Section 498A IPC. She has also contended that
the respondent had forced her to abort their child against her wishes, but has
failed to produce any evidence on record to prove the said allegations. During
the cross-examination of Sh. Bhopal Singh (PW-4), the respondent's witness, a
suggestion was made that the respondent had got married to another women but it
remained a mere suggestion, without any proof. The appellant has also admitted
in her MAT.APP.(F.C) 95/2017 Page 16 testimony that the respondent had visited
her at her parental home at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi on 28.02.2006 and that after
28.02.2006, she had never visited Etah, UP, where her in-laws reside.
24. On the other hand, the respondent has produced on record
the evidence to demonstrate that the appellant had removed all the items lying
in the locker held in their joint names, without obtaining his consent. The
witness from the Bank, PW-2 had duly proved the fact that the locker was
operated lastly by the appellant on 06.03.2006. This fact clearly shows that
after the alleged incident of 04.03.2006, the appellant had taken out all the
articles lying in the locker without the consent of her husband. The respondent
has also examined PW-3 who brought the records from the Border Roads
Organisation which proves the fact appellant had filed that several complaints
making various allegations against the respondent not only in his office, but
also to several other authorities with a copy marked to his office. Enquires
were made into the allegations in the complaints, but no substance was found
therein and ultimately, the respondent was exonerated. The husband had taken a
plea that this act of the wife had caused him grave distress, agony and had
also lowered his reputation in the department, among his friends and colleagues
and in the society.
25. In the case of G.V.N. Kameswara Rao vs. G. Jabilli
reported at (2002) 2 SSC 296, the Supreme Court had observed that false police
complaints would result in mental cruelty as it leads to loss of reputation and
standing in the society at the instance of one's spouse. The act of leveling of
unsubstantiated charges of adultery against the husband not only during the
stay of the spouses together, but also during the divorce proceedings was
treated as an act of cruelty on the part of the wife. In R. Balasubramanian vs.
Vijaylakshmi Balsubramanian (SMT) reported at (1999) 7 SCC 311, the Supreme
Court held that an unfounded allegation of adultery is a serious allegation
amounting to cruel conduct, and found that these factors cumulatively proved
cruelty on the part of the appellant therein for entitling the husband to
dissolution of the marriage.
26. In the present case, the evidence clearly establishes
the facts that the appellant had filed a false criminal complaint under Section
498 A of IPC, and Court had discharged the respondent. On her complaints, the
department had also conducted enquiry against the respondent and thereafter,
exonerated him, finding no truth in such complaints. Further, during the trial,
the appellant had taken a stand that her husband had got remarried to another
woman by giving an suggestion of this nature to PW-4, but could not prove it.
27. In the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela
Vijaykumar Bhate reported as (2003) 6 SCC 334, the Supreme Court has settled
the proposition of law by observing as under:-
"7. The question that requires to be answered first is
as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the
wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental
cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the
Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and
declared that disgusting levelling accusations of unchastity and indecent
familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital
relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as
well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to
the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian
conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty,
sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of
the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or
suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross- examination satisfy
the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On
going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no
exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well
as the High Court.
We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and
consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the
reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting
disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend
that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her
MAT.APP.(F.C) 95/2017 Page 19 like that and rendered the maintenance of
matrimonial home impossible." (emphasis added)
28. Again, in a recent decision in the case of Narendra vs.
K. Meena reported as AIR 2016 SC 4599, applying the ratio of its earlier
decision in the case of Vijaykumar (supra) the Supreme Court has reiterated
that unsubstantiated allegations if levelled, amounts to mental cruelty and is
a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. In a very recent
judgment in the case of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja reported as AIR 2017 SC
2138, relying on the ratio of an earlier decision in the case of Ravi Kumar
(supra), the Supreme Court has held that "reckless, defamatory and false
accusations against her husband, his family members and colleagues, which would
definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of
peers" amounting to cruelty. In the case titled Santosh Sahay vs. Hanuman
Sahay reported as 2016 IX AD (Delhi) 1, a Division Bench of this Court has held
that false character assassination and allegations of such a nature made by a
spouse amounts to mental cruelty and the wronged spouse is entitled to seek
divorce on that ground.
29. To sum up, the allegations leveled by the appellant
which she failed to substantiate even on the yardstick of preponderance of
evidence, are of such a nature that would have lowered the image of the respondent
in the eyes of his superiors,
subordinates and peers and this act would certainly constitute cruelty. It is
an undisputed position that the parties have been living separately since
04.03.2006 and in all this duration, the appellant seems to have made no effort
to join the company of the respondent. Rather, her act of 06.03.2006 of
cleaning out the joint locker of the parties shows an animus descendi.
30. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion
that the findings of the learned Trial Court are based on the evidence on
record. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned
Family Court had given more weightage to the evidence of the respondent is
turned down as baseless. We find no reason to unsettle the impugned judgment
which is accordingly upheld. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine
with no order as to costs.
DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) HIMA KOHLI (JUDGE)
