Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(Where the wife leveled false allegations of illicit relationship with another Lady.)

 In Hemwanti Tripathi vs. Harish Narain Tripathi, 181 (2011) DLT 237, it is also held that :

"14........That the ratio of Ashok Kumar v. Santosh Sharma (supra) and Savitri Bachman (supra) 

wherein it was held that a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty can be passed on the strength of false, baseless, scandalous and malicious allegations in the written statement by one party on the other is thus found applicable to the facts of the present case because in the case at hand the husband has not led any evidence in support of his allegations. What surprises this Court the most is that despite the fact that the Trial Court gave the entire findings in favour of the Appellant but still passed the judgment against the Appellant merely on the ground that the acts alleged by the Petitioner against the Respondent at best can be termed as wear and tear of daily life and does not amount to cruelty. The learned Trial Court further held against the Appellant because she failed to produce any close relative including her uncle who was living in neighborhood to prove the instance of beatings given by the Respondent on various dates. This Court fails to comprehend as to how such a view could be taken by the learned Trial Court as clearly serious and malicious allegations of the Appellant having relationship with one Sadhu and her staying out of the house during nights also levelled by the Respondent and as per the settled legal position, casting such aspersions on the character of the other spouse has the affect of causing deleterious affect on the mind of such spouse and the same is a worse form of cruelty. It has not been denied by the Respondent that no evidence was led by him to prove that the Appellant used to go out during night to stay with that Sadhu. The Respondent has also not given any reasons in the Ex. PW 1/1 to severe his relationship with the Appellant.

In the matter of : AJEET PANWAR Vs BABITA ( Delhi High Court).

29. It is a case where not only false allegations were made against the appellant/husband and in-laws but they were also got arrested and later on acquitted on charges being found to be false. This in itself amounts to cruelty. Even the attempt by the respondent/wife to commit suicide so as to get his in-laws including unmarried Nanad and married Nanad implicated in itself is an act of cruelty on her part upon her husband and in-laws.

30. Learned Judge Family Court failed to consider all these aspects while dismissing the petition seeking divorce on account of cruelty. Learned Judge Family Court failed to note that in matrimonial pleadings appellant was not required to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt like any criminal trials but on preponderance of probabilities. Both the acts independently were sufficient to prove cruelty and grant of a decree of divorce to the appellant/husband.

31. The learned Judge Family Court in our estimate failed to approve and appreciate the pleadings of the parties and their evidence under correct legal perspective.

32. The impugned judgment is not sustainable and is set aside.

Divorce on Grounds of irretrievable broken down under Hindu Marriage Act.

In the matter of : Sardar Avtar Singh vs Amarjeet Kaur Gandhi ( Delhi High Court)

As the parties are living separately for more than sixteen years and there has been no reconciliation and the marriage has been irretrievable broken down, it is just and proper that the marriage between the parties is dissolved by decree of divorce for the reasons stated in paras 12 to 19.

12. Besides the instances of cruelty detailed in the petition, there was another instance of cruelty i.e. the scandalous allegations leveled by the respondent against the appellant of illicit relationship with one Parvinder Kaur. This allegation was made by the respondent in the cross examination of the appellant as against all settled law, the learned Trial Court wrongly rejected this ground of cruelty by simply holding that one single act cannot be treated as cruelty. The relevant part of the judgment to this effect is reproduced hereunder :

"...The counsel for petitioner has contended that the respondent has also inflicted cruelty upon the petitioner as during cross examination, it was suggested to him that he had illicit relations with one Parvinder Kaur and was residing with the said woman. The counsel for petitioner objected to said cross examination of the petitioner being beyond pleadings of the respondent, so, counsel for respondent was not allowed to put further question to that effect to the petitioner. Admittedly, there are no pleadings of the respondent that the petitioner had illicit relations with one Parvinder Kaur and this suggestion to the petitioner was given beyond pleadings. Even perusal of the testimony of the respondent shows that once she had tried to contact the petitioner when he was residing at Rohini, she found one another lady inside the house and petitioner on that occasion had asked the respondent to leave the place or he would break her legs and throw her from the fourth floor. This incident appeared to have taken place subsequent to the filing of the petition and it should have been brought on record by the respondent through her counsel as subsequent event, however, it has not been done so in the present case. No doubt, leveling of scandalous allegations without proof do amount to mental cruelty but in the present case, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the conduct of the petitioner one single act of the respondent that she disclosed before the court that petitioner was found living with another woman cannot be treated as cruelty for dissolution of their marriage, particularly, when the respondent till date wants to keep her thirty years old marriage with the petitioner alive...."

19. It is the admitted position that the parties are living separately since January, 1995, i.e. for more than sixteen years. The allegations of cruelty is also such which makes reconciliation between the parties have "irretrievable broken down" and as such there is no reason to carry on with the broken or dead marriage and continuation with such a marriage will cause further mental cruelty to the appellant. In such cases, it is expedient and necessary to dissolve the marriage with decree of divorce as it has been held in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the relevant part is reproduced hereunder :

"Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavor to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties."

In the another matter : Satish Sitole Vs Smt. Ganga( The Apex Court )

 “Having dispassionately considered the materials before us and the fact that out of 16 years of marriage the appellant and the respondent had been living separately for 14 years, we are also convinced that any further attempt at reconciliation will be futile and it would be in the interest of both the parties to sever the matrimonial ties since the marriage has broken down irretrievably.”