Listen to whatever your wife says: SC tells husbands

New Delhi

If you want to buy matrimonial peace just do whatever your wife says!

This is not some piece of advice from a marriage counsellor, rather it is from the country’s apex court.

A vacation bench of justices Markandeya Katju and Deepak Verma observed, “Bibi joh boltee hai woh sunno (listen to whatever your wife says), as otherwise it could land you in trouble. Because if you do not listen to her, you will suffer the consequences.”

“Hum sab bhogi hai (we are all sufferers),” the bench said in a lighter vein.

The bench further said that a husband has to accept the suggestion of a wife irrespective of the fact whether it is sensible or not.

“If your wife asks you to put your face that side, put it that side. If she says, put it this side, then put it this side. Otherwise you will face trouble. Hum sub bhogi hai,” the bench remarked again.

The interesting suggestions from the apex court evolved on Tuesday during a matrimonial case involving an Air Force official Deepak Kumar who complained that his estranged wife Manisha had ruined him and his family by implicating them in false criminal cases including sodomy.

The couple got married 17 years ago but matrimonial disputes surfaced between the two soon after marriage. A district court in Chandigarh dismissed Deepak’s plea for divorce as Manisha opposed it, but a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted decree of judicial separation.

On an appeal from Manisha, a division bench granted the decree of divorce as the marriage “had irretrievably broken down” besides directing Rs 10 lakh maintenance amount from Deepak to her.

Aggrieved by the high court’s order Manisha filed the appeal in the apex court challenging the decree of divorce. Deepak’s counsel argued that Manisha even though had implicated her husband and his family in a host of criminal cases was yet opposing the divorce despite the marriage breaking down irretrievably.

The vacation bench however, posted the matter for further hearing to July last week as there was no urgency in dealing with the matter.

“You have waited for 17 years, so wait for a few more days,” the bench said while switching over to the next item on the agenda.

source URl

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Listen-to-whatever-your-wife-says-SC-tells-husbands/462532/2/

Wife being arrested and prosecuted in a murder case amounts to cruelty

More at

AIR 2007 Raj 99 – Vimla Bai vs Panchu Lal

….These small twigs of abnormal behaviour when piled, one upon another became a heavy burden of “cruelly”. This mental torture was more heavier than any physical torture…

…..In this case, it is pertinent to note that the appellant wife has not entered the witness box to rebut on oath the testimony of the respondent. The respondent has objected to the abnormal behaviour and way of living of the appellant. These facts are within the personal knowledge of the appellant. She was required to enter the witness box to deny the said assertions of the respondent but under the advice of her counsel, she declined to enter the witness box……

more at

AIR 1995 P H 312 – Smt. Uma Wanti vs Arjan Dev

Judged in the light of the principles discussed above what we find is that right from the beginning the matrimonial relationship between the parties was not normal; the spouses stayed together at the matrimonial home for a short period of about six months; the respondent had been trying to persuade the appellant and her parents to agree to go for proper medical treatment to improve her health so that the parties may lead a normal sexual life; all such attempts proved futile.  The appellant even refused to subject herself to medical test as advised by the doctor. After 21st June, 1987 she stayed away from the matrimonial home and the respondent was deprived of her company.  In such circumstances, the respondent who was enjoying normal health was likely to feel a sense of anguish and frustration in being deprived of normal cohabitation that every married person expects to enjoy and also social embarrassment due to the behavior of the appellant.  Further, the conduct of the appellant in approaching the police complaining against her husband and his parents and in not accepting the advice of the superior judicial officer Mr.S.K.Jain and taking a false plea in the case that she had conceived but unfortunately there was miscarriage are bound to cause a sense of mental depression in the respondent. The cumulative effect of all these on the mind of the respondent, in our considered view, amounts to mental cruelty caused due to the stubborn attitude and inexplicably unreasonable conduct of the appellant……..

more at :

Appeal _civil_ 3930 of 2002 – PARVEEN MEHTA Vs INDERJIT MEHTA

16. Cruelty implies and means harsh conduct of such intensity and persistence which would make it impossible for the spouse to operate the marriage. Cruelty is not defined in the Act. Jt is to be determined on the basis of proved facts and circumstances of the case. No fixed formula can be had for cruelty. It is to be determined keeping in view the culture, temperament and status in life of the parties and many other factors. In a case of similar facts in Gurdip Kaur v. Balbir Singh, 1990 (2) HLR 109 it is held that the wife is guilty of cruelty and on this count, decree of divorce was granted.

17. In the case in hand, herabove conduct in the matrimonial home, her threats and attempts to commit suicide, her act of lodging false complaint against her husband and his relations under Section 498A/ 34, IPC (which ended in acquittal) are incidents of cruel behaviour towards the respondent. Her this conduct made it impossible for the respondent to live peacefully with her in the conjugal home. Thus according to me, the trial Court has not fallen into error in holding her guilty of the offence of cruelty and on this ground granting a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent in the alternative. No other point is pressed before me.

More at

AIR 1996 P H 98 – Rama Kanta vs Mohinder Laxmidas Bhandula

Unbearable conduct completly destroying peace of mind

making living with spuse un bearable

destroying real purpose and object of matrimony

I _1999_ DMC 283 – Manisha Jha _Smt._ vs Kunal Kanti Jha

………….On the other hand, various incidents brought out in the evidence would show that the relationship between the parties was irretrievably broken, and because of the non-cooperation and the hostile attitude of the respondent, the appellant was subjected to serious traumatic experience which can safely be termed as ‘cruelty’ coming within the purview of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.  However, we make it clear that any order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent will stand unaffected by this decree for dissolution of the marriage.  We also make it clear that if any rights have been accrued to the respondent in the joint assets of both, she would be at liberty to take appropriate action to enforce such rights. The appeal is allowed.            Parties to bear their respective costs.

………

Appeal _civil_ 140 of 2002 – G.V.N. KAMESWARA RAO vs G. JABILLI

……..The above facts of cruelty, proved by the husband, support his case.

No husband of Indian society, would tolerate such a behaviour of the wife that she would always insult and abuse him, would insist him to live separately from his mother and sister, to leave the minor daughters under the care and custody of the husband knowing fully well that he has to be out on duty some times during night hours also, to call him to be Police Station, get him detained there and thereby force him to agree to the terms dictated by her and by her relations.

Wife is required to be dutiful, obedient, and tolerant, should have love and affection not only for the husband, but also for his relations and her own children. ……..

I _1997_ DMC 377 – Balbir Kaur vs Daljit Singh

Cruelty need not be of such a charecter as to cause danger to life limb or health .

Creulty means and implies harsh conduct and persistence which would make it impossible for the spouse to operate the marriage

AIR 1980 Kant 8 – Srikant Rangacharya Adya vs Anuradha

(1)Whether the respondent has established cruelty and desertion as per the provisions contained in Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act ?

(2) If so, whether the respondent is entitled for a decree of divorce under Section 23A read with Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act?

AIR 1980 Kant 8 – Srikant Rangacharya Adya vs Anuradha