This case summary is written by Simran Kaur Bilkhu, Balaji Law College, Pune University during her internship with LeDroit India.
Citations: (2002) 5 SCC 706
Case no: Appeal (civil) 3930 of 2002
Date of Judgement: 11-07-2002
Bench: Justice D.P Mohapatra and Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Facts
The appellant here is the wife of the respondent, they were both married according to Hindu rites and customs on 6th of December, 1985. Through negotiation the marriage between the two was antedated. When the respondent first saw his wife, when certain members of the two families met, he remarked that she appeared thin and sickly.
When he inquired as to the cause of her poor health, her father and other relatives informed him that she had been experiencing a rigorous food restriction and had been making attempts to lower her weight.
After the ceremonies and their personal meet, the marriage took place. Asking his wife right after the marriage he reckoned that his wife has an issue and took her to the doctor on 10th December, 1987 while taking medicines for the same.
The spouses stayed together until the respondent was posted as a Judicial Officer at Panipat until28th April, 1986 when they parted company to stay together again. Dr.B.M.Nagpal of Civil Hospital, Panipat, examined the appellant in February 1986.
The doctor recommended a complete examination and diagnosis. However, this was not practicable since the appellant refused to comply and eventually gave up because she was not interested in receiving medical care.
Case Summary
In the said case the respondent filed a petition seeking divorce from the appellant on the grounds of cruelty. The appellant was suffering from some ailment to which his husband took his wife to regular check-up’s and treatment for her betterment. Before marriage when the respondent went to see the appellant and have a word before marriage he saw that the appellant looked weak and unwell. He thus asked her family members about the same and then they said that it was nothing but she was kept on a strict diet and it was nothing to worry about. Coming right on to the current say, the respondent was working hard to convince her wife to go to the treatment.
However the appellant was not interested in taking and treatment that his husband was striving hard to take her to so that if she got better they could lead a further happy married life and continue to stay as one.
After the respondents many tries she still refused and threw tantrums for not going. Her behaviour got out of control and she started misbehaving and giving the respondent a hard time. The respondent took the act up, thinking she was unwell, still pushing her to attend the treatment. The behaviour she adopted was making the respondent embarrassed socially as she used to deny doing anything when she was told to.
This made the respondent very helpless as the appellant refused to get herself treated and for her well-being. Due to her lack of medical attention for herself she had an asthma attack. The respondent was clearly over the behaviour even after trying for several times but which failed to push her to work for herself.
Alleging the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent filed a petition in August 1996 seeking for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The appellant denied the allegations made by the respondent in the petition. She denied that her husband had been misled about her health before the marriage. She denied that she has been suffering from any serious problems and said she was totally fine. It was in her case that the respondent and her parents wanted to pressurize the appellant and her family to agree on a mutual divorce.
It was on 21st June 1987 that both the families had a meeting at her mother’s sister’s house where the respondent said that before marriage he stated that the appellant was too weak and she must be dealing with some health issues and that he is not ready to take her back. There were several attempts made by her parents and relatives to change the respondent’s mind and persuade him to take the appellant back to his house. But, no affirmations were given by the respondent and his family.
Further respondent made an appeal before the high court assailing the judgement of the trial court.
Arguments presented
When the respondent’s friends came over for tea, the appellant refused and began misbehaving with him in front of the visitors, causing him shame. And, on one occasion, when Shri S.K. Jain, a senior Judicial Service official who eventually became a Supreme Court Judge, reviewed the case with the parties in the hopes of reaching an agreement, the appellant caught the respondent’s shirt collar, creating an uncomfortable and humiliating scenario. Taking a false plea but having a miscarriage in the case where she had conceived is bound to send the respondent into a state of mental melancholy. The cumulative effect of these on the respondent’s mind, in our opinion, amounts to mental cruelty.
- Desertion: {On 6 December 1985 the parties were married. Once they parted, they were only together for a short time, till April 28, 1986. Despite numerous attempts by families and well-wishers, no agreement could be reached between them. In 1996, a petition for dissolution of marriage was filed. In the meantime, the company has been divided by the spouses for several years 2. “Sex plays a critical role in marital life and cannot be separated from other variables that provide matrimony a way of fulfilment and fulfilment.” Prepared to partake in sexual activity with him in exchange for the wedding not being consummated.
For the above reasons, the appeal was permitted, the marriage between the parties was dissolved, and a divorce decree was issued in favor of the appellant (husband) and against the respondent on the grounds of desertion and cruelty (wife). The parties were left in contact with their own expenses under the circumstances of the case.
Legal Aspect
“Voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse”; “cruelty”; desertion “for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the submission of the petition”; “cease(ing) to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion”; and being “incurably unhealthy” are among the grounds for divorce under Section 13 of the Act. When it was first passed, the Hindu Marriage Act did not contain “cruelty” as a reason for divorce. This rationale for pursuing both divorce and judicial separation became possible after a 1976 amendment.
Although Parliament included the word ‘cruelty’ in the Act, it did not give a full definition.As a result, the notion has been interpreted by the judiciary over time in accordance with its meaning, and courts have formed reasons for awarding relief in circumstances of both physical and mental cruelty.
Relief
23(1a) In any proceeding for divorce, legal separation, or restitution of legal rights, the respondent may not only object to the relief sought on the grounds of the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty, or desertion, but also file a counterclaim for any relief available under this Act; and if the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty, or desertion is proven, the court may grant the respondent any relief available under this Act.
Judgement
The said appeal was allowed by the single judge who granted the prayer of the respondent for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and further held that since they had no child after 14 years of marriage out of wedlock it would be in the interest of justice that the parties should separate.
