Mere Allegation Of Frequent Quarrel By Spouse Not Sufficient To Substantiate Grounds Of Mental Cruelty For Divorce: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that allegations by one spouse of frequent quarrel will not be sufficient to form an opinion on acute mental pain.
The Court was considering an Appeal under Section 19 read with Section 28 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order of Family Court whereby the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking grant of a decree of divorce was dismissed.
The division-bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, "The couple lived together for around six years and the appellant-husband could not bring on record specific instances of mental harassment to enable this Court to adjudicate the case of mental cruelty in favour of the appellant/husband. The allegations that she was quarreling with him without any reason, in the considered view of this Court, are not sufficient to form any opinion that the appellant/husband is undergoing acute mental pain, agony, suffering, disappointment and frustration and therefore it is not possible for him to live in the company of the respondent/wife."
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Alok Tripathi while the Respondent was represented by C.S.C.,Rajneesh Kumar Verma.
The Appellant-Husband in the case married his wife in 2015 and in 2016 filed Petition before the Family Court alleging therein that he was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent/wife with whom he married under coercion Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
It was the case of the Husband that he earlier had a live-in relationship with his wife and bore expenditure of her father’s medical treatment, who eventually executed a ‘Will’ in favour of the respondent before his death in 2015. He stated that after the demise of his wife's father, dispute arose between them and her mother over employment and financial benefits. It led to her mother getting her married to him forcefully. He alleged that after marriage, the respondent began imposing severe restrictions, forbidding him from visiting or supporting his parents and brothers and further humiliated him in front of hospital staff and patients by making baseless allegations about his relationships with colleagues and lodging false police complaints about he having gone missing whenever he was away from home.
It was also the case of the husband that the wife captured obscene images and videos of him, which were given to her brother, who then blackmailed the appellant with the manipulated materials, demanding money and threatening to publicly defame him. He also alleged that the wife had also physically assaulted him, dragged him by his hair, pushed him off the bed, and instigated her brother to attack him. Furthermore, the wife and her family attempted to forcibly occupy a house under construction, which was being built by him with a loan. The wife and her family had also pressurized the appellant to transfer ownership of the house in the respondent’s name and obstructed the workers from continuing the construction. She also allegedly implicated him in a fake Rape Case and went on to create a web of complaints against the him, which caused immense mental harassment & cruelty. Resultantly, he developed hypertension and heart disease.
The Family Court in its finding stated that the parties had cordial relationship between 2010 to 2016 and it's difficult to understand as to when the wife had inflicted mental, financial and physical cruelty against the husband. Counsel for the Husband submitted that the Wife committed physical and mental cruelty by filing various complaints including false and frivolous criminal complaints against him and though he raised plea of cruelty at the hands of his wife by oral as well as by documentary evidence, the Family Court did not considered the pleadings and the evidence on record, in its correct perspective. He averred that the Family Court failed to consider the ill- treatment which was subjected to him by the wife and submitted that the very lodging of false allegations against the husband amounts to mental cruelty. He further submitted that the Family Court ignored the bad habits of the wife, and also not considered that she used to quarrel with the husband in front of his friend and hospital staff.
The Court at the outset referred to Supreme Court's judgement in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh wherein the Court have enumerated some instances of mental cruelty
"A careful perusal of the pleadings and the evidence in support as adduced by the appellant/husband, would at once reveal that the allegations with regard to cruelty as set out by the appellant/ husband, are nothing but the normal wear and tear in married life. The couple lived together for around six years and the appellant-husband could not bring on record specific instances of mental harassment to enable this Court to adjudicate the case of mental cruelty in favour of the appellant/husband. The allegations that she was quarreling with him without any reason, in the considered view of this Court, are not sufficient to form any opinion that the appellant/husband is undergoing acute mental pain, agony, suffering, disappointment and frustration and therefore it is not possible for him to live in the company of the respondent/wife," the court observed.
The Court noted that all the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and the major allegation amongst them is with regard to her not permitting him to meet his parents and friends and regarding misbehaviour with him in front of his friend and hospital staff and also having lodged frivolous complaints against the appellant, which alone is not sufficient to grant a decree of divorce.
"The complaints lodged by the respondent/wife had to be proved false and malicious by the Appellant, so as to meet the threshold of cruelty. On the contrary, the appellant/husband in his cross-examination has admitted that they had physical relations between 2013 to 2016. At this stage, it would be relevant to add that the suit for divorce was filed by the appellant only on 14.11.2016. The instances of physical and mental harassment, as pleaded and asserted by the respondent/wife in her written statement, are on the better footing than those alleged by the appellant/husband. This Court also finds that the petition for Domestic Violence has been allowed in favour of the respondent/wife, wherein she has even been awarded a compensation and a monthly maintenance. This all goes on to show the contrary implication of the allegations made by the Appellant," the court observed.
The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Dr. Bagish Kumar Mishra v. Rinki Mishra (2024:AHC-LKO:76762-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant- Advocate Alok Tripathi, Advocate Anju Agarwal, Advocate Hari Om Pandey, Advocate Meena Bajpai, Advocate Nisha Srivastava, Advocate Shailesh Kumar Srivastava
Respondent- C.S.C.,Rajneesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Surya Prakash Singh
Click here to read/ download Judgement:
