Tag Archives: cruelty

wife who deserted husband in 1992 tries to contest divorce decree but looses completely !!

 

Marriage in 1992, Parties have stayed together hardly for a few months. Wife ridicules and ill treats husband as she is more qualified than him. She also leaves him and goes away to parental home. Husband wins divorce in lower court, but wife contests the case which comes up for decision in march 2017 !! Wife loses the case (in March 2017). It is NOT know if wife has gone on further appeal !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

 

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.86 OF 2014

 

Vaishali w/o. Rajesh Barde,
Aged : Adult,
R/o. C/o. Shri Hiwarkar,
E.W.S. Colony, New Somwaripeth,
Nagpur. : APPELLANT

…VERSUS…

Rahesh s/o. Harihar Barde,
Aged 41 years,
Occupation : School Teacher,
R/o. C/o. Samajsewa Vidyalaya,
Wadhona, Tah. Nagbhid,
Distt. Chandrapur. : RESPONDENT

 


Ms. Muley, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Dongre, Advocate for the Respondent.


CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 1 st MARCH, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

By this family court appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court, dated 17.04.2008 allowing a petition filed by the respondent for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 27.07.1992 at Nagpur as per Hindu rites and customs. The appellant and the respondent started residing at village Sawargaon where, the respondent- husband was working as a teacher. It is the case of the husband in the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion that the appellant-wife was more qualified than him and, therefore, she always felt that the respondent-husband was not a proper match for her. It is pleaded by the husband in the petition that the wife did not have a desire to live with the husband in Sawargaon. It is pleaded that the wife used to pick up quarrel with the husband time and again and used to abuse him in filthy language. It is pleaded that the husband always tried to adjust and ensure that there was harmony in the house but, the wife always quarreled and tried to lower the image of the husband in the society. It is pleaded that the wife did not have any intention to perform the matrimonial duties and she used to leave the matrimonial home at odd times. It is stated that due to such behaviour of the wife, the husband had to suffer great mental agony. It is pleaded that in the first Diwali after the marriage, the wife left the house of the husband without informing him and returned to the house on the day of Laxmipujan. It is pleaded that the acts on the part of the wife amounted to cruelty and the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The husband pleaded that he was also entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It is pleaded that the wife had left the matrimonial house sometime in May 1994 without any just or reasonable excuse and she was staying away from the husband for about 11 years, till the petition was filed. It is pleaded by the husband that the wife had flatly refused to come to Bramhapuri where his parents resided. It is pleaded that the husband took several steps to bring back the wife to the matrimonial home, but the wife did not oblige. It is pleaded that the wife and her parents had informed the husband that she was not ready to cohabit with the husband in the matrimonial home and the marriage between the parties should be dissolved. The husband sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The wife filed the written statement and denied the claim of the husband. The wife denied that she had treated the husband with cruelty. The wife denied that she illtreated the husband because she was highly educated. The wife denied that she had no desire to live with the parents at Bramhapuri. The wife denied that she had left the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. The wife also denied that she used to leave the matrimonial house time and again without any rhyme or reason without informing the husband. The wife denied all the adverse allegations that were levelled against her by the husband. In the specific pleadings, the wife pleaded that the allegations levelled against the wife by the husband only showed the normal wear and tear in the matrimonial home. It is pleaded that the allegations levelled by the husband against the wife, even if held to be proved could not amount to cruelty. It is pleaded that the husband was always suspecting the wife’s character and the said act on the part of the husband caused severe mental agony to the wife. The wife pleaded that an irretrievable break irretrievably brake down of a marriage is not a ground for granting a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife pleaded that the husband has not pointed out that the wife had a desire to live separately from the husband. The wife sought for the dismissal of the petition.

The wife had filed a separate petition against the husband under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for grant of maintenance. Both the petitions, the one filed by the husband for the decree of divorce and the other filed by the wife for maintenance were tried together by the Family Court and while partly allowing the petition filed by the wife for maintenance, the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The judgment of the Family Court, so far as it grants a decree of divorce in favour of the husband is challenged by the wife in this family court appeal.

Ms. Muley, the learned counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that the Family Court could not have granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. It is stated that the Family Court was not justified in holding that the wife was not desirous of residing with the husband and she had consented for a decree of divorce by mutual consent, by accepting a sum of Rs.3/- lakhs. It is submitted that the allegations levelled by the husband against the wife would at the most be considered to be the acts showing the normal wear and tear in a matrimonial house and the said allegations, even if they are held to be proved, cannot result in holding that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. It is submitted that a decree of divorce could not have been passed in favour of the husband on the ground of desertion, as there is evidence on record to show that after the wife left the matrimonial house in May 1994, she had tried to join the company of the husband by returning to the matrimonial home in July 1994. It is submitted that neither is the factum of desertion proved, nor is the factum of ‘animus deserendi’ proved in this case. The learned counsel submitted that the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce was liable to be dismissed.

Shri Dongre, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband has supported the judgment of the Family Court. It is submitted that the Family Court has considered the evidence of the parties in detail and has held that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty and that she had deserted him. It is submitted that there was ample evidence on record to show that the wife was having a superiority complex and she always used to quarrel with the husband, as she was more educated than him. It is submitted that the husband had clearly stated in his cross-examination on the suggestion made on behalf of the wife that the wife had pointed out a spelling mistake made by the husband and had admonished him that being educated he should not have committed such a mistake. It is stated that the husband had stated in his evidence, especially in his cross-examination that the wife used to taunt the husband because he was less educated than the wife. It is stated that the husband had stated in his cross-examination that he has stated in his affidavit about the behavior of the wife that lowered his image in the society. It is stated that the husband admitted that the wife had demanded divorce on payment of an amount. It is stated that the suggestion given on behalf of the wife to the husband in his cross-examination and the answers of the husband thereto would clearly prove that the wife was treating the husband with cruelty. It is submitted that the Family Court has rightly held that the wife had left the company of the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. It is submitted that the Family Court has rightly held that the wife had deserted the husband and the husband was not responsible for the separation. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the husband had driven the wife out of the house and that he had not taken any steps for residing together. The learned J-fca86.14.odt 7/14 counsel sought for the dismissal of the Family Court Appeal.

It appears on a perusal of the original record and proceedings and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, that the following points arise for determination in this family court appeal :

i) Whether the husband proves that the wife has treated him with cruelty ?

ii) Whether the husband proves that the wife has deserted him without any just or reasonable excuse ?

iii) Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce ?

iv) What order ?

The pleadings of the parties are narrated in detail in the earlier part of the judgment. The husband had entered into the witness box and had reiterated the facts stated by him in his pleadings in regard to the nature of the wife. He had stated that she used to leave the house without any rhyme or reason without informing the husband. The husband had also stated in his evidence that the wife did not like to reside in Bramhapuri along with his parents and that on the first Diwali she had left the house without informing him and had returned on the day of Laxmipujan. It is stated by the husband that the wife always used to taunt him because she had secured the degrees of M.Com., M.A. and M. Phil. and the husband was not as educated as her. The husband stated that time and again the wife used to quarrel with the husband and sometimes the neighbours had to intervene and this conduct on the part J-fca86.14.odt 8/14 of the wife has lowered his image in the society. The husband narrated all the other facts pleaded by him in his petition in his examination in chief. The husband was cross-examined on behalf of the wife. The cross- examination of the husband is very material. In fact, the suggestions given on behalf of the wife to the husband proves the case of the husband that the wife had treated him with cruelty. The husband has admitted in his cross-examination that the wife was more qualified than him and that once she had pointed out a spelling mistake and had scolded him that he should not have committed such a mistake, being educated. The husband admitted in his cross-examination that there were certain instances which made him believe that the wife was not ready to live with him. The husband stated in his cross-examination that he had stated in his affidavit about the wife’s behavior which resulted in lowering his image in the society. The husband admitted in his cross- examination that Laxmipujan falls on 3rd or 4th day of Diwali festival and the wife had left the matrimonial home on Diwali without informing him and had returned on the day of Laxmipujan. The husband admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know where the wife had gone on the day of Diwali. The husband admitted that he had no knowledge about the plan of the wife to leave the matrimonial home in May 1994. The husband admitted that the wife had demanded divorce on payment of amount. The husband stated that he had stated about the fact in respect of demand of money by the wife in his affidavit.

It is apparent from the cross-examination of the husband that for a petty matter, where the husband committed a spelling mistake, the wife took the husband to task in the early days of marriage and told him that he should not have committed such a mistake, when he was educated. The parties had resided together for not more than four months. Within a short period of four months a normal wife may not even open up to tell her husband that he has committed a mistake and that he should never commit it again. It is apparent that within a short stay of about four months with the husband in the matrimonial home during which period, she had left him time and again and had gone to her parents, she had admonished the husband for a trifle spelling mistake. The husband had stated in his cross-examination that the wife used to taunt him because he was less educated. This suggestion should not have come from the side of the wife to the husband in his cross-examination. The husband had also stated in his cross-examination that the wife had tried to lower his image in the society and that she had left the house on the first day of Diwali without informing him and returned to the house on the day of Laxmipujan. The husband had stated in his cross-examination that he was not aware about the plan of the wife to leave the matrimonial house in May 1994. The husband also stated in his cross-examination that the wife had demanded divorce on payment of J-fca86.14.odt 10/14 amount. This fact is fortified by a consent divorce petition filed by the parties in the Family Court. The husband and the wife had agreed that the husband would pay a sum of Rs.3/- lakhs to the wife as full and final settlement and that the marriage between them would be dissolved. After filing the petition in the Court, the Family Court has noted that when the parties were called for recording the statement in respect of consent divorce, the wife had backed out. It is apparent from the cross- examination of the husband that the wife had demanded divorce from the husband on payment of amount and it appears that the wife was not ready to accept the amount of Rs.3/- lakhs as she desired some more amount when the matter was settled and a consent decree was to be passed by the Court. The husband had not only examined himself but had also examined his uncle Shri Keshav Mandavgade. This witness had clearly stated in his examination in chief that whenever the husband asked the wife to come along with him to his parents at Bramhapuri, she refused to accompany him. It is stated that without informing the husband, the wife used to go to Nagpur to her parental home from Sawargaon, when the husband was out of the house on his duties. Shri Keshav has stated in the examination in chief that when he had asked the wife not to behave in such a fashion, the wife said that the husband and his family members are not dignified people and they are not much educated. The witness stated in his evidence that the wife told him that she did not get a matrimonial house as per her desire and she had married the husband only with a view to please her parents. The witness stated that the wife had admitted that because she was not happy in the matrimonial home, she used to leave the house and go to her parental house at Nagpur. The witness also stated in his evidence that the wife told him that she was ready to sever the matrimonial relationship, but the amount spent by her father on the marriage should be returned to her. Though, this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the wife, there is no cross-examination on the aforesaid facts stated by him in his examination in chief. In the absence of any cross-examination on the material evidence tendered by Shri Keshav Mandavgade, the facts stated by him in his examination in chief remain unchallenged and the husband is successful in proving his case that the wife had treated him with cruelty on the basis of his evidence as also the evidence of Shri Keshav Mandavgade. It is also notable that though the wife had not pleaded in her written statement that she had found a photograph of a woman in a religious book and the husband had snatched the said photograph from her and that he had an affair with the said lady, the wife went on to make the aforesaid statements in her examination in chief. The Family Court rightly held that levelling serious allegations on the character of a party and failing to prove the same would tantamount to cruelty. The wife has stated in the evidence, though there are no pleadings in that regard, that when the wife had enquired about the photograph of a woman in a religious book of the husband, the husband had started torturing and beating her mercilessly. If the husband had filed the petition eleven years after the separation of the parties and if this incident had really occurred, the wife would have, in the first place pleaded these facts in her written statement. The wife, however, did not do so. Levelling serious allegations against the husband’s character without pleading and proving the same, if considered along with the other acts on the part of the wife would tantamount to cruelty. The Family Court held and rightly so that the wife had deserted the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. The parties were residing separately for more than eleven years before the husband filed the petition for a decree of divorce. The parties had resided together only for four months and there was a separation period of eleven years when the petition was filed. The Family Court, therefore, held on an appreciation of the evidence on record that the husband did not drive away the wife from the matrimonial home, as pleaded by her and the wife had left the company of the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. The Family Court held that it was apparent from the evidence of the parties that there was no intention on the part of the wife to join the company of the husband. The case of the wife that she returned to the matrimonial home with a view to reside with the husband cannot be believed.

Though the wife had issued a legal notice to the husband for claiming maintenance, the wife did not ask the husband to reside along with her. The wife had also not filed any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. If the wife really desired to live with the husband she would have surely filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights while filing a petition for maintenance. The Family Court has rightly held that the wife started living separately from the husband on her own without any reasonable excuse and she was not ready to resume cohabitation. After having held that the husband had not driven the wife away from the house and that she was responsible for the separation, the Family Court held that the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. We find that the Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the parties to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. We find that the wife was interested in securing money from the husband and was not interested in residing with the husband. The aforesaid position could be fortified by the consent terms that were signed by the parties and presented in the Family Court. The wife then refused to compromise the matter with a view to ensure that the husband pays some more amount. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Family Court was not justified in granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.

As the judgment of the Family Court is just and proper, the family court appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

Advertisements

Hey MAN, Don’t file for #DIVORCE if you do NOT have a VERY strong case

In India MEN can’t get #divorce easily alleging #cruelty or desertion, unless you have cogent #proof and #witnesses. Also case should be fought throughly from the very start (meaning don’t miss key issues at the start). See this pathetic case where parties are separated for at least 7 years, there seems to be nothing left in the marriage, but the husband has LOST his divorce even at the HC … It’s better to remain single and NEVER approach courts for justice, IF you are NOT sure and NOT ready with tons of proof
 
 
/////7. In any case, the Family Court had come to a considered conclusion that the Appellant had not made out his case of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the said Act while dismissing the divorce petition. We find that the conclusions rendered by the Family Court 24 / 26 FCA. 89-09.sxw are based on correct appreciation of the evidence and material on record and none of the findings can be said to be perverse. An attempt was made on behalf of the Appellant to demonstrate that there was nothing left in the marriage with passage of time and that the Appellant was in no state of mind to take back the Respondent and the minor child to his home. We feel that this cannot be a factor to decide the fate of the divorce petition, filed by the Appellant. He came to the Court with a specific case of mental cruelty being inflicted by the Respondent on him. But he has failed to prove his case on the basis of evidence and material on record. We find from the record that between September 2009 to April 2010 the parties did stay together with the minor child under orders of this Court and even during this period it was recorded in the order dated 18.1.2010 that the Appellant could not make up is mind to take the Respondent and child to his home. The record shows that the Appellant was intensely desirous of having divorce, but he has failed to make out the case with which he has approached the Court.
 
28. A feeble attempt was made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant to claim that an adverse inference needs to be 25 / 26 FCA. 89-09.sxw drawn against the Respondent that there was no sincerity in her statement about her desire to cohabit with the Appellant and his parents even today, because she did not file any application under Section 9 of the said Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The said submission made on behalf of the Appellant is wholly without any substance because it cannot be held that the divorce decree as prayed for by the Appellant deserves to be granted only because the Respondent – wife failed to file an application for restitution of conjugal rights.
 
29. Thus, on considering the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the judgment and order passed by the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition of the Appellant is justified and that there is no merit in the present appeal. Point No. 1 is therefore, answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
 
30. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No. 308 of 2015 filed therein does not survive and is therefore disposed of.
 
Sd/- Sd/-
[MANISH PITALE, J.] [A. A. SAYED, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
 
//////

#Wife #convicted of murdering 3 children files #false #dowry case. Husband wins #divorce on #cruelty. SCC

Classic case where #matrimonial #cruelty is discussed; Smt. #Mayadevi vs #Jagdish #Prasad on 21 February, 2007; #Supreme #Court of India

A married woman, mother of four kids acts cruelly to her children, keeps them tied with ropes, does NOT even feed the husband, borrows monies and refused to repay the same and finally #kills #three of her children #throwing them into a #well !! She is arrested and #convicted u/s #302IPC. She filed an application for bail. While on bail, she filed a false case alleging dowry demand against the respondent-husband and his family members. Final report was given by police and it was observed that a false case had been lodged. However husband wins divorce on grounds of crulety. Supreme court affirms the same !!

This case establishes that proof beyond reasonable doubt is NOT required in matrimonial disputes: The concept of proof beyond the shadow of doubt is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence. Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial matters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Supreme Court of India

Smt. Mayadevi vs Jagdish Prasad on 21 February, 2007

Author: . A Pasayat

Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dalveer Bhandari

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 877 of 2007

PETITIONER: Smt. Mayadevi

RESPONDENT: Jagdish Prasad

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/02/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 3686 OF 2006) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the ‘Act’).

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty alleging that because of the acts of cruelty on several occasions perpetuated by the appellant, the respondent- husband was under apprehension that it would not be desirable and safe to stay with the appellant and to continue their marital relationships.

It was, inter-alia, stated in the divorce petition as follows:

Parties got married according to the Hindu rites on 17.4.1993. The appellant’s father was an employee in the Railway department and the appellant used to make demands for money frequently and used to quarrel when money was not paid. She did not even provide food to her husband or the children and used to threaten the husband to falsely implicate him in a case of dowry demand and to kill the children and to put the blame on the respondent-husband and his family members. On 23.10.1999 she took Rs.1,05,000/- from the respondent and acknowledged the receipt of the money in the diary of the respondent-husband. She used to borrow money from time to time at the behest of her parents. From the wedlock four children were borne namely, Neha, Anu, Khemraj and Vishnu Sagar. The appellant used to keep the children tied by ropes and she attempted to throw them down from the rooftop and used to physically torture them. She was temperamentally very cruel and used to behave cruelly with the children also. She always used to threaten that she will destroy the whole family of the respondent and that there would be no successor left in the family. On 5.4.2002 at about 12.00 noon she left her parental home alongwith three children namely, Neha, Anu and Khemraj on the pretext that she was going to her parental house which was located in the same village. Since she did not return till evening as was told to the respondent-husband, he started searching for her. During course of search the garments and slippers of the children and the appellant were found lying near the well of Ramialji. Police was informed and on search dead bodies of the three children were recovered from the well and appellant was also taken out of the well. A criminal case was instituted and she was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). She was pregnant at that time and subsequently delivered a child. She filed an application for bail. While on bail, she filed a false case alleging dowry demand against the respondent-husband and his family members. Final report was given by police and it was observed that a false case had been lodged. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

The appellant filed her response to the petition for divorce and contended that no amount was borrowed by her father or any of her family members. The respondent-husband used to threaten her for dowry and she had never perpetuated any cruelty so far as the children and the husband are concerned. She did not know as to how the children fell into the well. She was herself unconscious and recovered after about four days. The husband, in fact, turned her out of matrimonial home on 5.4.2002 alongwith their three children. Unfortunately, she and the three children fell into the well. The appeal is pending against her conviction. The trial Court found that the allegation of cruelty was established. Several instances were noted. One of them related to her behaviour on the date of judgment in the criminal case. After the judgment of conviction was pronounced, she threatened to kill the husband and prosecute him. It was also noted by the trial Court that the allegation made by her alleging for dowry demand was dis-believed and the police gave final report stating that the case was falsely lodged. The trial Court granted the decree of divorce which was, as noted above, confirmed by the High Court in appeal by dismissing appellant appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the foundation of decree for divorce is the alleged conviction for which the appeal is pending and, therefore, the High Court should not have disposed of the matter. In any event, it is submitted that it was the husband and his family members who were torturing her and being threatened by the husband she had not made any grievance with the police. Unfortunately, when she made the allegation, the police did not properly investigate the matter and gave a final report exonerating the husband.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the instances highlighted by the trial Court and analysed in great detail by the High Court clearly made out a case for dowry and no interference is called for in this appeal.

The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.

The expression ‘cruelty’ 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. Cruelty is a course or 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 in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in 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. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or 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 (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121 and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur 2005 (2) SCC 22 ).

To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.

The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse’s conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent.

The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. (See Dastane v. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534). http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

The instances of cruelty highlighted by the trial Court and also by the High Court clearly prove that the husband was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. It is not a fact as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction in the criminal case was the foundation for the decree. On the contrary, the trial Court clearly mentioned that the aspect was not taken note of as the appeal was pending.

In view of what has been stated above, the inevitable result is dismissal of the appeal which we direct. There will be no order as to costs.

Filing false 498a, fake rape on BIL is cruelty !! Husband granted divorce by Bombay HC 

WIFS files fake 498 year, domestic violence, section 125 cocktail on husband… Claims that husband’s brother was about to rape her… The husband’s family is terrified… Husband’s father testifies about the terror… Husband tries to get her back, she refuses and files 498a t… However at the divorce hearing,  she claims that she is ready to live back with a husband to frustrate him …. The family court refuses to grant divorce  to the husband…finally, the honourable  High Court, sees through the wife’s game, and declares that she has treated the husband and his family with cruelty. Husband is granted divorce.

====================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2016

APPELLANT :- Vinay S/o Vasantrao Bagde, aged about 37years, Occ. Private Job, resident of Panchadeep Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur.
…VERSUS…

RESPONDENT :- ig Sou.Durga W/o Vinay Bagde, aged about 41 years, Occ. Service, resident of C/o Tanajirao Ukey, 187-B, Vina Nagar, Indore, (Madhya Pradesh)


Mr.Masood Shareef & Mr.A.J.Mirza, counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Anil Bambal, counsel for the respondent.


CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK & V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 08-09.02.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T
(Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
The family court appeal is ADMITTED and heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

  1. By this family court appeal, the appellant-husband (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Husband’ for the sake of convenience) 08-902FCA47.16-Judgment 2/17 challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur, dated 03.02.2016 dismissing a petition filed by him against the respondent-Wife (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Wife’) for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
  2. The husband had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The marriage was solemnized between the parties on 08.03.2002 at Indore (M.P.), according to Buddhist rights and custom. It is pleaded in the petition by the husband that the wife started residing in the joint family of the husband at Nagpur along with father aged 71 years, his mother aged 60 years and his elder brother who was suffering from mental disorder. It is pleaded that the husband learnt that the wife was elder to him by four years and the said fact was concealed by her at the time of the marriage. It is pleaded that the wife was suffering from epilepsy and the said fact was also not disclosed. It is pleaded that though the husband and his family members treated the wife well and with affection, the wife did not behave properly. It is pleaded that the wife was admitted by the husband in a college to further educate her a per her wish. It is pleaded that in January-2010, the father of the wife came to Nagpur and demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the father of the husband and since the husband had showed his inability to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for the construction of the house of the father of the wife, 08-902FCA47.16-Judgment 3/17 the wife became angry and collected her clothes, documents and ornaments and left for Indore along with her father. It is pleaded that the wife is residing along with her parents and her son Bhavesh from 02.02.2010 in her parental home. It is pleaded that though the husband asked the wife to join his company, the wife did not join the same. It is pleaded that the wife filed a false complaint against the husband and his family members under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the members of the family of the husband had to secure bail. It is pleaded that the wife had harassed the husband and his family members, mentally and financially by filing a false report against them. It is pleaded that the wife also filed the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, at Indore. It is pleaded that though the wife was not desirous to cohabit with the husband and indeed wanted a divorce, she had filed the proceedings only with a view to harass the husband and his family members. Some other vague allegations are also levelled against the wife to point out that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty.

  3. The wife filed the written statement and denied the claim of the husband. The wife denied all the adverse allegations levelled against her by the husband in her written statement. The wife pleaded that the behaviour of the husband and his family members changed drastically after some days of the marriage. The wife pleaded that the husband was a heavy drunkard and was merciless by nature. It is pleaded that the husband had treated the wife like an animal and she was mercilessly beaten up by the husband under the influence of liquor.

The wife pleaded that she was not permitted to come out of the house and to speak with anyone. It is pleaded by the wife that the father of the husband used to instigate the husband to give illtreatement to the wife till their illegal demand was fulfilled. It is pleaded that the husband and his parents always insulted the father and mother of the wife and stated that her father and mother were Bhikari. It is pleaded that on 28.01.2010, the husband was admitted in the hospital and, hence, the father and the mother of the wife had come from Indore to meet him.

It is pleaded that on 02.02.2010 the husband abused them in filthy language and after insulting them, threw the sarees and suitcases of the wife and her parents out of the house. It is pleaded that the wife was required to lodge a complaint in Sonegaon Police Station on 02.02.2010, after she left the house. It is pleaded that she was residing in the house along with her parents at Indore, after she left the matrimonial home on 02.02.2010. The wife sought for the dismissal of the Hindu Marriage Petition.

  1. The Family Court framed the issues and the parties tendered oral evidence. The husband examined himself and also examined his father and a maidservant who had worked in his house for some time during the stay of the wife. The wife examined herself and closed the evidence on her side. On an appreciation of the material on record, the Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband after recording a finding that the husband was unsuccessful in proving that the wife had treated him with cruelty.
  • Shri Shareef, the learned counsel for the husband, submitted that the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the petition filed by the husband. The learned counsel relied on the judgment in the proceedings launched against the husband and his family members for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

  • By taking this Court through the said judgment, it is pointed out that the wife had levelled false and baseless allegations against the husband and his family members in the first information report as well as in the written statement in this petition. It is stated that after the complaint was filed by the wife in the police station at Indore, the husband and his family members were harassed both, mentally and financially and were required to secure bail. It is submitted that it could be proved on the basis of the judgment passed in the proceedings under Section 498-A of the Penal Code as also from the evidence tendered by the parties in this case that the wife had levelled false and baseless allegations against the husband and his family members. It is stated that though the husband had admittedly fractured his leg on 29.01.2010 and he was resting in the bed on 02.02.2010, the wife has levelled a false allegation that the husband threw her sarees and her suitcases as also her parents out of the matrimonial home on 02.02.2010. It is stated that it is apparent from the admissions by the wife in her cross-examination that the husband had an injury to his leg on 02.02.2010 and, hence, the case of the wife that she and her parents were thrown out of the matrimonial home on 02.02.2010 along with her sarees and her suitcases is false and baseless. It is submitted that the wife had never lodged a complaint against the husband during her stay in the matrimonial home till 02.02.2010 and on 02.02.2010, though it is stated that she had filed a complaint in the police station at Nagpur, the copy of the complaint is not placed on record. It is submitted that though the wife had left the matrimonial home on 02.02.2010, the complaint for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is filed by her in the police station at Indore in the second week of July. It is submitted that if the wife was really ill-treated by the husband, she would have immediately lodged a report after she left the matrimonial home on 02.02.2010. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter is not considered by the Family Court in the right perspective to hold that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. It is submitted that the wife has not only filed a false complaint against the husband but, has also filed a false complaint against his old parents and his elder brother, who was suffering from mental ailment. The learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 900 (Manoj Pate v. Vijaya Pate) to substantiate his submission.

    1. Shri Bambal, the learned counsel for the wife, has supported the judgment of the Family Court. It is submitted that the Family Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the husband after observing that the husband has failed to prove that the wife had treated him with cruelty. It is stated that in his cross-examination, the husband had admitted that in the mediation proceedings, the husband had agreed to take back the wife to the matrimonial home. It is stated that the said admission of the husband in the cross-examination would disentitle the husband to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is submitted that the husband has not properly pleaded about the mental agony caused to him and his family members due to the filing of a false complaint by the wife for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. Though the learned counsel admitted that the wife had improved her case in regard to the harassment by the husband and his family members in her evidence tendered in the criminal proceedings, it is stated that the husband has not stated in his examination-in-chief that the evidence of the wife in the criminal proceedings has caused mental agony to him. It is stated that merely because the husband and his family members are acquitted in the criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that the report filed by the wife was false and baseless.
  • On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgment of the Family Court and the Record & Proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this family court appeal. I) Whether the husband is successful in proving that the wife had treated him with cruelty? II) Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty? III) What order?

  • To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings of the husband in respect of the ground of cruelty are very brief. The husband had pleaded that the wife had not disclosed to him before the marraige that she was older than him by four years. It is stated that the wife suffered from epilepsy but, this fact was also not disclosed to him and his family members. It is stated that the wife did not perform her duties in the matrimonial home properly and did not treat his parents well.

  • Apart from the aforesaid allegations, the husband has pleaded that after leaving the matrimonial home on 02.02.2010, the wife had lodged three proceedings against the husband at Indore, where she resided with her parents. According to the husband, the wife had filed the proceedings 08-902FCA47.16-Judgment 9/17 against him for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she had filed proceedings against him under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking a direction that she should be provided with a violence-free atmosphere in the matrimonial home and had also filed a false complaint against the husband, his parents and his elder brother in the police station at Indore for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. According to the husband, he and his family members had to secure bail in view of the lodging of the false police complaint against them, at Indore. The husband has pleaded that the husband and his family members were harassed mentally and financially due to the filing of the false complaint against them. The husband pleaded that the filing of the false, frivolous and vexatious proceedings against the husband and his family members has caused great harassment to them.

    1. The wife denied the claim of the husband and had pleaded that she had left the matrimonial home on 02.02.2010 as the husband threw her sarees, suitcases and also threw her and her parents out of the matrimonial home on the said date. The wife had pleaded that the husband was a heavy drunkard and he used to beat her and treat her like an animal after he was in an inebriated state. The wife denied that that she had filed a false complaint in the police station at Indore.
  • In our view, the Family Court has rightly held that the husband was unsuccessful in proving that the wife was four years older than him and that she had not disclosed this fact prior to the solemnization of the marriage as there is no cogent evidence in this regard. The Family Court has also rightly disbelieved the case of the husband that the wife suffered from epilepsy as there are no medical reports in this regard. The Family Court rightly held that to prove that the wife was suffering from epilepsy, some cogent evidence, in the nature of medical reports should have been placed on record by the husband to show that the wife suffered from epilepsy. The allegations levelled by the husband against the wife in regard to her ill-behaviour in the matrimonial home and that she did not perform her duties, are extremely vague and general. No specific instances are provided by the husband in the petition to show that in what manner, the wife was treating the husband and his family members with cruelty.

  • It would now be necessary to consider whether the husband is successful in proving that the wife had treated him and his family members with cruelty by lodging a false complaint in respect of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. We have perused the first information report lodged by the wife in the police station at Indore, that is Exhibit 44. In the first information report filed by the wife in the police station at Indore, she had stated that the 08-902FCA47.16-Judgment 11/17 husband used to be under the influence of liquor and used to treat the wife like an animal. The wife had pleaded that the husband and his family members had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her parents.

  • The wife had stated in the complaint that her father-in-law used to abuse her and her mother-in-law asked her not to return to the matrimonial home till she fulfilled the demand. The wife had stated that the elder brother of the husband also was not behaving properly with her. The wife had stated in the complaint that her belongings were thrown out of the house by the husband on 02.02.2010 and that she and her parents were driven out of the matrimonial home. Similar pleadings find place in the written statement of the wife in this case also. We have perused the judgment in the criminal proceedings. On a perusal of the same, it appears that the wife has improved her case while tendering the evidence in those proceedings and has levelled extremely serious allegations against the husband and his family members. It appears from the jdugment in the criminal proceedings that the wife had stated in her evidence in the criminal proceedings that the elder brother of the husband always threatened that he would rape her. The wife has stated that the elder brother of the husband had caught hold of her hand on several occasions in her bedroom. The wife has further stated in those proceedings, as we can find from the judgment in the criminal proceedings that the husband used to dump her in the refridgerator and also used to throw her down the staircase. No doubt, this is not the case of the wife in the present proceedings. This was also not the case of the wife in the first information report lodged by her in the police station at Indore. The wife had left the matrimonial home on 02.02.2010 and lodged the police complaint at Indore several months later, in the second week of July-2010. Had the husband and his family members really treated the wife with such cruelty as is contemplated by the provisions of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, the wife would have filed a complaint against her husband and her in-laws immediately after leaving the matrimonial home. At least, there should have been some material for proving that she had made any complaint in regard to such inhumane behaviour by the husband and his family members during her stay in the matrimonial home for nearly eight years. In the instant case, the husband has examined the maidservant, who was working in the house for some time during the stay of the wife in the matrimonial home. The said witness has supported the case of the husband that the wife was never treated badly in the matrimonial home. In the cross-examination, though a tricky question was put to the maidservant as to why she did not ask the husband to refrain from drinking, the maidservant had stated that she had never seen the husband in an inebriated condition and, hence, there was no reason to tell him so. Except the bare words of the wife in her examination-in-chief that she was beaten by the husband when he was in an inebriated state and she was treated like an animal, there is nothing on record to support her case. The complaint allegedly filed by her in the police station at Nagpur on the date on which she had left the matrimonial home is not placed on record by her. In fact, the wife admitted in her cross-examination that she had infomred in the police station at Nagpur on 02.02.2010 that no action should be taken against her husband as there was an injury to his leg.

    It is unbelievable that a husband who had fractured his leg on 29.01.2010 and was confined to the bed on 02.02.2010 would throw all the belongings of the wife along with her suitcases out of the house and also throw her and her parents out of the house. This is surely an exaggeration and the statement is unbelievable. It may be true that there must be some fight between the husband on one hand and the wife and her parents on the other on 02.02.2010, as a result of which the wife has left the matrimonial home but, the case of the wife that the husband who had fractured his leg and was on the bed, had thrown her belongings out of the house and also threw her and her parents out of the matrimonial home, appears to be false and baseless. It is apparent from a reading of the evidence of the parties that the wife has failed to prove that on 02.02.2010, the husband threw the belongings of the wife along with her suitcases out of the house and had also driven the wife and her parents out of the matrimonial home. Admittedly, when the husband had fractured his leg and was unable to move about, as is admitted by the wife in the cross-examination, the husband could not have thrown the wife, her parents and the wife’s belongings out of the matrimonial house on 02.02.2010, as pleaded by the wife. On the said day i.e., 02.02.2010, the husband’s parents were not in the matrimonial home as they had gone to Madhya Pradesh. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, we find that the evidence of the husband is more weighty than the evidence of the wife. The case of the wife about the manner in which she had left the matrimonial home on 02.02.2010 is unbelievable. It appears that the wife has not pointed out the true and correct facts to the court. There was no complaint by the wife against the husband for nearly eight years. It is not her case that she had informed her parents or relatives about the behaviour of the husband either by communications or orally during her stay in the matrimonial home for 8 years. If the husband was really treating her like an animal, there would have been some material on record to show that the husband was really beating the wife after getting drunk. There is no complaint by the wife about the husband even to her parents or her relatives till she left the matrimonial house on 02.02.2010. After staying in the company of the husband for more than eight years, the wife has for the first time, lodged a complaint against the husband in July, 2010 after leaving the house on 02.02.2010. We find that the filing of the complaint against the husband and his parents appears to be an afterthought. The husband and his family members are acquitted in the criminal trial. We find that the wife had levelled false allegation against her husband and her in-laws in the complaint filed by her in the police station at Indore in July, 2010 and it appears that the said complaint was filed with a view to intimidate the husband and his family members. The father of the wife was a police officer in Indore. If the wife really wanted to stay in the company of the husband, as she has stated in the written statement, the wife should not have filed a false complaint against the husband and his family members. It has come in the evidence of the parties that the mother of the husband was staying away from the matrimonial home, as she was working in a school in Madhya Pradesh. Though the mother of the husband was not residing in the matrimonial home, the complaint was lodged by the wife against her mother-in-law also. The complaint was lodged by the wife against the old father-in-law, who was more than 70 years of age. The wife has also made serious allegations against the brother-in-law in the criminal proceedings though in the present proceedings the wife had not levelled any allegation against him. We find that extremely serious allegations were levelled by the wife against the husband and his family members in the evidence tendered by her before the criminal court as could be seen from the judgment of the trial court in the criminal proceedings. If the husband was treating the wife like an animal, how could the wife express her desire in the written statement and her evidence to return to the matrimonial home, without putting the husband to terms. We find that the wife had filed a false complaint against her husband and her in-laws. The husband has clearly pleaded and proved that the filing of the false complaint by the wife against him in respect of the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Penal Code has caused mental and financial harassment to the husband and his family members. It appears that the husband and his family members were required to secure orders for bail after the wife lodged the false report against the husband and his family members. It is held by this Court time and again that filing of false complaints by the wife against the husband for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Penal Code, would tantamount to cruelty. Though the husband has stated in his cross-

    examination that in the mediation proceedings he was ready to take back the wife to the matrimonial home, he has stated in his examination-in-chief as also in his cross-examination that he was not ready to cohabit with the wife. The father of the husband has stated in his cross-examination that since the wife has caused great mental trauma to them in view of the filing of the false proceedings under section 498-A of the Penal Code, the wife should not return to the matrimonial home. The father of the husband has expressed a fear that if the wife is permitted to return to the matrimonial home, they would constantly be under fear that she would again lodge a false complaint against the husband the family members thereby putting them in serious difficulty. The Family Court did not consider the aspect in respect of filing of the false complaint by the wife in the right 08-902FCA47.16-Judgment 17/17 perspective while dismissing the petition filed by the husband. The husband is successful in proving that the wife had treated him with cruelty.

    1. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the family court appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Family Court is set aside. The petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 08/03/2002 is dissolved by decree of divorce. No costs.
      JUDGE
      JUDGE

    APTE/KHUNTE

    Wife left 12 years ago. All accused in DOWRY case DISCHARGED !! Still NO divorce for man!

    husband-wife-quarrel

    When I tell ppl that A MAN filing for divorce is taking a gamble and that could be costly and FUTILE, ppl just laugh at me !! Now guys tell me what this is ???

    “…In his plea, the husband argued that since he and his wife had been living separately for the past 12 years, he should be allowed to end his marriage. ……”

    “…On her part, the wife claimed she was harassed for dowry but HC found that everyone was discharged for lack of evidence by the trial court…”

    No proof wife’s cruel, divorce plea junked

     

    TNN | Sep 10, 2016, 01.02 AM IST

    New Delhi: A man living separately from his wife for over a decade failed to get a divorce from the Delhi high court after he couldn’t prove that his wife was cruel.

    A bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani dismissed the appeal filed by the husband, pointing out that divorce can’t be granted merely on the grounds that a marriage is dead and there has been a breakdown.

    “We know that the parties have been living separately for the past 10 years. Efforts made at different levels by the family court could not resolve the issue. Parties may claim that the marriage has broken down irretrievably as they could not reconcile themselves but the question is whether this is reason enough to be granted divorce. The answer is no according to the decision of the apex court,” the bench noted, refusing relief.

    In his plea, the husband argued that since he and his wife had been living separately for the past 12 years, he should be allowed to end his marriage. The man had filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on account of cruelty.

    But the trial court, on the basis of evidence, concluded that the accusations of cruelty against the wife could not be proved.

    “We have no hesitation to conclude that the instances given by him are nothing but normal wear and tear in a matrimonial life, which cannot constitute mental cruelty and aren’t weighty enough to dissolve the marriage,” the court said.

    On her part, the wife claimed she was harassed for dowry but HC found that everyone was discharged for lack of evidence by the trial court.

    “What actually led the wife to separate from her husband along with her daughter is something only the couple knows,” HC noted.

    Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.