Case Comment: Kirti Nagpal vs Rohit Girdhar on 20th November 2020
Introduction:
Matrimonial matters are between human beings based on an emotional relationship. It involves shared trust, respect, regard, love and friendship with adequate play for sensible adjustments with the companion. The relationship needs to adjust to the social norms too. the grounds for divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 are Adultery, Cruelty, Desertion, Conversion, Mental disorder, Leprosy, Vulnerable Diseases etc.[1] Under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is given that the marriage can be dissolved if one party treated the other with cruelty.[2] The husband can also file a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty from the wife.[3] Giving a chance to husbands to file a plea on the grounds of cruelty would be better if one is to maintain gender equality and avoid fake complaints. The cruelty suffered by the spouse could be physical or mental. The Supreme Court has said that mental cruelty should be of such an extent that parties cannot live together in the case of V Bhagat vs. D Bhagat[4].
At the point when it was first passed, the Hindu Marriage Act didn’t have ‘cruelty’ as a ground for divorce. It was after an amendment in 1976 that this premise opened up for looking for both divorce and judicial separation. While Parliament embedded the term ‘cruelty’ in the Act, it didn’t supply a thorough definition. Subsequently, the term has since been perceived by its translation by the judiciary throughout the years – during which time the courts have advanced justification for giving relief in instances of both physical and mental cruelty.
To establish cruelty, the behaviour complained of ought to be “weighty and grave” in order to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner can’t be sensibly or reasonably asked to live with the other life partner[5] or it will be to an extent that it will be injurious or harmful for them to live with the spouse.[6]
In a case of 2007, it was held by the Court that if the behaviour of the partner is to such an extent that it could cause disturbance in the mind of the other one about their psychological welfare, at that point it adds up to cruelty.[7] The same is the case with the levelling of false accusations by one partner about the other having alleged illicit relations with various people outside the wedlock added up to mental cruelty.[8] It very well may be viewed as mental cruelty of such a nature that he can’t be sensibly asked to live with his wife.[9]
Facts of the Case
The parties got married on 24th June 2012 according to the Hindu rites and rituals in Delhi. At the time of the solemnization of the marriage, the husband’s marital status was that of a divorcee and the appellant i.e., the wife was a bachelorette. Both the parties moved to Singapore and lived there from 1st July 2012 till 26th august 2012. They even got their marriage registered in Delhi on 31st August 2012.
The respondent, at first, preferred a petition seeking a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12 (1)(a) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act based on two main grounds. Firstly, because of the appellant wife’s impotency, the marriage could not be consummated. Secondly, some material facts were hidden from the respondent-husband relating to the wife’s psychological state and hence, his consent was obtained by hiding these facts.
The written statement filed before the Trial Court by the appellant, however, claimed that the husband was, in fact, impotent and it was the real cause that the marriage could not be consummated. Secondly, she accused the respondent’s family for demanding dowry. Thirdly, that her husband’s parents had quarrelsome nature. Also, the wife with whom the respondent was married before her also left him due to the torture that was caused to her by the respondent and his family.
The husband stated that because of the appellant wife’s impotency, the marriage could not be consummated. Second, that some material facts were hidden from him. Placing reliance on the wife’s written statement, the respondent amended his petition and conveyed that the grounds mentioned by the plaintiff were false and had caused him mental cruelty.
Judgment by the Family Court
The family court had dismissed the request to pronounce the marriage void under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Before the family court, the wife had stated that the respondent was suffering from erectile dysfunction because of which the marriage had stayed non-consummated. The relief for divorce was sought after the allegations were made in the written complaint.
The respondent argued that malicious and false allegations made against him in the written statement are equivalent to cruelty and that no one with a sense of mind would want to proceed in a matrimonial alliance with such a lady.
While the wife continued levelling charges against the respondent, the trial court said that her claim of impotency was dismissed on grounds of the declaration made by an expert witness. The expert discovered that he had no problems after the physical examination of the husband. The family court, then, allowed for the divorce of the husband on grounds of cruelty. This decision was challenged by the appellant wife before the High Court saying that she has been looking for restitution of conjugal rights and was willing to save the matrimonial alliance.
Judgment by the High Court
A bench consisting of Justices Manmohan and Justice Sanjeev Narula delivered strong statements for the situation getting down on the woman who made false allegations on her husband with no ground. The court mentioned, ‘It was anything but an irregular easy-going retaliatory comment. The stand-in the written statement was supported all through the trial, till the stage of final decision.’
The bench moreover said, ‘The allegations and claims made by the wife have been consistently reinforced during the trial. Huge exertion was made to prove that the respondent was undoubtedly impotent. “No party can be pardoned of foolishness in allegations made before the Court of law. The outcomes of false assertions have to follow.’
‘Mental agony’
“It is also completely clear that because of the psychological torment, distress and enduring brought about by the false allegations, the respondent couldn’t be relied upon to endure the put up with the appealing party and to continue living with her,” the High Court said. It moreover dismissed the request of the appellant who challenged the decision of the Family Court allowing the husband’s plea for grant of the divorce. The Supreme Court has also examined the idea of mental cruelty in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh.
The Court also clarified that the intention to be cruel does not matter and is not an essential element of cruelty under section 13(1) (ia) of the Act. It is sufficient that the cruelty is enough that it becomes impossible for the spouse to live together.[10] The Court, in yet another case, held that a threat that a wife gives to commit suicide adds up to infliction of mental cruelty on the husband yet it ought not to be expressed in a domestic quarrel.[11] In Poonam Gupta v. Ghanshyam Gupta[12], the husband of the complainant was in jail for 63 days with his father and brother who were there for 20 to 25 days due to a criminal complaint that was filed by the wife. Hence, despite the fact that the case of cruelty might not have been proved yet as the facts appearing from the record clearly show that the living together of the two as a couple would not exclusively be troublesome but impossible, the court has no other option except for to give a decree of divorce.
‘No evidence’
The trial court, regardless, dismissed her request observing that she had not outfitted any proof to validate her case. Nevertheless, the husband had delivered a report as evidence obtained from an expert saying that he was not impotent.
The court additionally reminded the woman that “in the event that it is established from the proof that the charges were false, at that point such baseless assertions made in the written statement can add up to cruelty and the Court can pass a decree of dissolution of the marriage. Permitting an individual to get away with the outcome of false allegations, or regarding them as trivial, would not advance the cause of justice, it said.
The facts show that cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It tends to be physical or mental. It is principally contextual, relating to human with respect to matrimonial obligations and commitments. It is, along these lines, vital to see whether the conduct of the party is of such a nature, that a sensible individual would neither tolerate something similar nor be reasonably expected to live with the spouse, the court held.[13] The court would not acknowledge the argument of the wife that the accusation of impotency was only in the nature of counter-allegations.
Conclusion
This verdict of the Honourable Delhi High court comes when bogus and malicious claims by the women on the husbands and his family under the garb women-centric family laws are regular these days. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is the best example of how a law can be abused by women to fulfil personal quarrel. The Supreme Court of India has held that misuse of Section 498A is legal terrorism.[14] A similar plea was raised before the apex Court in 2017 for giving directions to stop such misuse.[15]
Allowing a respondent to get away with the consequences of such false allegations will not serve the purpose of the Judiciary as in the case Jayanti vs Rakesh Mendiratta[16], it was held that in the matrimonial proceedings, the pleadings assume great significance. Such a judgment will go far that doesn’t aimlessly say something in favour of the women and provides a contemplated order punishing the woman for filing frivolous cases with mala fide goals without any merit at all.
References:
[1] Hindu marriage Act, 1955, § 13, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).
[2] Hindu marriage Act, 1955, § 13(1) (ia), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).
[3] Special marriage Act, 1955, § 27(1), No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India).
[4] (1966) 2 All E R 257.
[5] B.N. Panduranga Shet v. S.N. Vijayalaxmi, AIR 2003 Karn 357
[6] Vimlesh v. Prakash Chand Sharma, AIR 1992 All 261.
[7] Maya Devi v. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2007 SC 1426.
[8] Jai Dayal v. Shakuntala Devi, AIR 2004 Del 39.
[9] Sadhana Srivastava v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, AIR 2006 All 7.
[10] Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli, AIR 2004 All 1.
[11] Pushpa Rani v. Vijay Pal Singh, AIR 1994 All 220.
[12] AIR 2003 All 51.
[13] Hindu marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).
[14] Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 281 (India).
[15] Rajesh Sharma vs the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2017 (8) India.
[16] 2016 (4) CLJ 498 Del.
0 Comments