Husband's appeal against dismissal of divorce suit alleging wife's mental cruelty and unsoundness of mind. The court held the alleged conduct related to possible mental disorder rather than cruelty, noting absence of documentary evidence and no steps toward reconciliation, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 31 of 2020
Praveen Kumar, Son of late Kapil Deo Singh, Resident of Qr. No. E-49, Sector1, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
….. Appellant
Versus
Arti Singh, Wife of Praveen Singh, D/o Shri Birendra Singh, Present & Permanent resident of Block No. 96-2.4, Road No. 5, P.O. P.S. Adityapur, Saraikella, Jharkhand. … .Respondent
Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate
10/5/03/2024 Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J
Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2019 (decree signed on 6.1.2020), passed by Shri Nalin Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Original Case No. 331 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed.
3. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent herein also) under section 13(1)(ia) and 13 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein inter alia it has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 12.5.2007 as per Hindu Rites & Customs at Adityapur, Seraikella, Kharsawan. After marriage, both started residing at the house of the petitioner at Ranchi and though the respondent was bestowed with love and affection at her matrimonial house but her attitude remained indifferent. In July, 2007 the father of the petitioner was diagnosed of having a blockage in the heart for which he was got admitted at AIIMS New Delhi. The petitioner and his family members including the respondent in order to take care of the father of the petitioner stayed near the hospital at her relations house. It has been stated that the respondent started misbehaving with the petitioner and her inlaws and refused to be involved in any domestic chores. The uncle of the respondent who lives in New Delhi had come and was aghast at the behavior of the respondent and asked the petitioner and his family members to take care of the respondent as she was having some problem. In September, 2007, they came back home from New Delhi where the respondent started her abnormal behavior and she used
First Appeal No. 31 of 2020
2
to spend an inordinate time in the washroom. In the intervals of 15-20 days she became violent, abused the petitioner and his family members and threw utensils and this behavior continued for 4-5 days. She used to quarrel with the petitioner on trivial issues, refused to do any household works, threw away food cooked by the mother of the petitioner and used to address the petitioner and his mother with vulgar names. Due to such behaviour of the respondent the petitioner started going on a depression and he resigned from his job at Reliance Industries Limited. It has been stated that on 19.4.2009 the respondent gave birth to a female child and though for some days her behavior was normal but subsequently her abnormal behavior resurfaced. The respondent gave birth to a male child on 20.4.2012 and thereafter her behavior went out of control. It has been stated that the respondent used to issue threats that she will poison the petitioner and his family members and will commit suicide. The petitioner had got the respondent treated at Jamshedpur in the Psychiatric Department. It has been stated that the petitioner sent the respondent to her parents’ place on 13.7.2013 and requested to send her guardians for resolving the issue but no one came to meet him or his family members.
4. The respondent on being noticed had filed a written statement in which the allegation levelled by the petitioner against the respondent has been denied. It has been stated that the respondent is a disciplined lady having good moral character and well reputed family background. It has been stated that looking into the serious condition of her father in law she took him to Delhi at his uncle’s residence and he was admitted in AIIMS where her uncle bore all the expenses. The respondent was subjected to torture by the petitioner and her parents in law but she tolerated such behavior with the belief that things would change for the better once a child is born to her.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication.
First Appeal No. 31 of 2020
3
6. The petitioner has examined as many as six witnesses including
P.W-1-Dharasmshila Singh is the mother of the petitioner who has stated about the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent on 12.5.07 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After a few days of marriage her husband became seriously ill and he was taken to AIIMS New Delhi for better treatment on the advice of the doctors. There the respondent started creating troubles for the petitioner and abused and assaulted him. The uncle of the respondent who stays in New Delhi came to meet them and on seeing the conduct of the respondent felt ashamed and disclosed about the respondent having some problem. After returning from AIIMS, New Delhi the respondent had started behaving abnormally and also stopped doing any household works. The respondent was spending an inordinately long time in bathing. At every 15-20 days interval the respondent would become violent and this condition would remain for 4-5 days after which there would be some improvement in the atmosphere of the house. The respondent frequently used to throw the utensils of the house outside and the food was also used to be thrown out. During full moon and new moon the behavior of the respondent became violent and it was difficult to control her. She has stated that on 19.4.2019 the respondent gave birth to a female child after which the situation got normalized to a great extent. However after the respondent gave birth to a boy on 20.4.2012 her behavior turned from bad to worse as she also started assaulting her parents in law. She has stated that the parents of the respondent had concealed about the unsoundness of mind of the respondent at the time of marriage.
In cross-examination she has deposed that in Delhi the respondent had not made any physical assault upon her. In Delhi, there was a quarrel between both the sides and assault also but the same was not informed to the police. The respondent used to regularly do Puja. She also used to retaliate with abuses when the respondent abused her.
P.W-2-Praveen Kumar is the petitioner who in his sworn statement has reiterated what has been stated by P.W-1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the respondent used to bath twice a day and whenever she went to bath he would notice the timing in the clock. The respondent behaved violently during full moon and new moon. He had got the respondent treated by a doctor though he does not remember the name of the doctor. She was treated at TMH but he does not remember the date
First Appeal No. 31 of 2020
4
and year of such treatment.
P.W-3-Santosh Kumar is acquainted with both the sides. He in his sworn statement has reiterated what has been stated by P.W-1 and P.W-2.
This witness was discharged as no one turned up on behalf of the respondent to cross-examine him.
P.W-4-Subodh Kumar is also acquainted with both the sides and his evidence is similar to that of the other witnesses.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he frequents the house of the petitioner as he is well acquainted with the petitioner since long. The respondent had thrown the utensils on two occasions in his presence. After the birth of a daughter the atmosphere of the house improved and the situation was normal for 2-3 months. The petitioner had confided in him that it is not possible for him to stay with the respondent.
P.W-5-Mayank Kumar Singh in his sworn statement has stated similar to that of the other witnesses.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is the nephew of the petitioner. The marital life of the petitioner and the respondent was not smooth. When the father of the petitioner had gone for his treatment to AIIMS, New Delhi he was at Ranchi. The respondent used to abuse him also. The respondent used to quarrel with everybody on one pretext or the other and used to throw away utensils and food. He has deposed that the petitioner and the respondent used to physically assault each other.
P.W-6-Dr.Manoj Kumar Sahu is a Psychiatrist, who is posted at Tata Main Hospital since July, 2010. On 19.6.2014, he had treated the respondent and he has proved the prescription which has been marked as Ext-01. The respondent was treated for depression.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not treated the respondent for unsoundness of mind. The respondent did not adduce any evidence.
7. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant has submitted that he is confining his argument only with respect to mental cruelty. He has submitted that the issue of mental cruelty has been sufficiently proved by the petitioner. Learned counsel has taken the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner while submitting that there is a consistent evidence on record regarding the trauma the petitioner was subjected to by the respondent on account of her cruel behavior. Staying with the respondent has become an impossibility for the petitioner on account of the constant mental and physical assault he has undergone at the hands of the respondent. Mr. Vikash Kumar has submitted that the allegations made against the respondent have not been
First Appeal No. 31 of 2020
5
controverted by her in absence of adducing any evidence on behalf of the respondent.
8. Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that bald allegations have been levelled against the respondent without specifying any date or time for the incidents as alleged. It has further been stated that admittedly the petitioner and his family members had not made any complaint anywhere even in spite of being subjected to such cruelty as alleged.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Lower Court Records.
10 . Though issue nos. (ii) and (iii) are the core issues but in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner we are confining ourselves to issue no. (ii) which is with respect to mental cruelty.
11 . Cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions has considered such term and its ever expanding horizon. In the case of Sobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddy reported in 1988 1 SCC 105, it has been observed as follows:-
“4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words “treated the petitioner with cruelty”. The word “cruelty” has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted”.
12. Though the respondent has not been examined during trial but what transpires from the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses is that the allegation of cruelty seamlessly enters into the realm of unsoundness of mind. The averments in the plaint and the evidence of the witnesses speak out several instances depicting the conduct of the respondent which sometimes turned violent for which she was taken to a Psychiatrist. The evidence of the petitioner and his family members reveals about the respondent taking bath for long hours and sometimes throwing out utensils and food. The respondent would behave violently during full moon and new moon. Except for some quarrels, she had
First Appeal No. 31 of 2020
6
engaged with the petitioner on some occasions the other acts on the part of the respondent are connected with her unsoundness of mind. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the issue with respect to section 13 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( issue no. (iii) but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the petitioner despite such allegations have not been able to produce any documentary evidence save and except Ext-01 which would inculcate a sense of responsibility towards his wife. The petitioner also does not seem to have taken any positive steps for restoring normalcy in his marital life. The petitioner therefore has been unable to prove cruelty and issue no. (ii) has rightly been answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. 13 . We as a consequence to the discussions made hereinabove are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.2019 (decree signed on 6.1.2020) passed by Shri Nalin Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Original Case No. 331/2014 and this appeal therefore is dismissed.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
( Deepak Roshan, J)
Rakesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent-wife treated the petitioner-husband with mental cruelty after solemnization of marriage?
Whether the appellant-husband was entitled to a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sobha Rani Vs. Madhukar ReddyRelied on¶11
1988 1 SCC 105 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Praveen Kumar
Arti Singh
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
