Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7200-7201 of 2001
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.2000 of the Mumbai High Court in F.C.S. No. 56 of 1994)
Petitioner: Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate
Respondent: Neela Vijaykumar Bhate
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7200-7201 of 2001
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.2000 of the Mumbai High Court in F.C.S. No. 56 of 1994)
Judges: DORAISWAMY RAJU &D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 16, 2003
Head Note:
Section 13 – Hindu Marriage – Dissolution of – Divorce on the ground of cruelty by husband – What constitutes ‘cruelty’ – Wife seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty alleging harassment and nagging attitude on the part of the husband – In his application for restitution of conjugal rights and seeking custody of daugh-ters, husband branding his wife as an unchaste woman, keeping illicit sexual relations – Such allegations however withdrawn by the husband consequently – Trial Court viewing the allegations of cruelty pleaded by the wife to be normal wear and tear of marriages but granting divorce on the ground that the allegations made by the husband about the chastity of the wife which though withdrawn subsequently constituted cruelty – Family court also dismissing the husband’s application for restitution of conjugal rights and custody of children – High Court confirming the order passed by family court. Dismissing the appeals of the husband held that since a conscious and deliberate statement levelled with pungency and that too placed on record through written statement cannot be lightly ignored or brushed aside to be of no consequence merely because it came to be removed from record. Such allegations apart from being per se cruel in nature, also constituted an admission of the fact that for quite some time the husband had been persistently indulging in them un-relented and unmindful of its impact. That the husband treated his wife with intense cruelty became a fait accompli the day such allegations were made in the written statement. Therefore no fault could be found with the decision of the family court and confirmed by the High Court. Once the decree for divorce is confirmed then the relief sought by husband for restitution would inevitably fail.
Held:
To satisfy the requirement of clause (i-a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act. It is not as though the cruel treatment for any particu-lar duration or period has been statutorily stipulated to be necessary. As to what constitute the required mental cruelty for purposes of the said provision, in our view, will not depend upon the numeral count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct, but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the dele-terious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for main-taining a conducive matrimonial home. If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the courts perhaps need consider the further question as to whether their continu-ance or persistence over a period time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be a so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonable conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer. A conscious and deliberate statement levelled with pungency and that too placed on record, through the written statement, cannot so lightly be ignored or brushed aside, to be of no consequence merely because it came to be removed from the record only. The allegations levelled and the incidents enumerated in the case on hand, apart from they being per se cruel in nature, on their own also constitute an admission of the fact that for quite some time past the husband had been persist-ently indulging in them, unrelented and unmindful of its impact. That the husband in this case has treated the wife with intense cruelty is a fact, which became a fait accompli the day they were made in the written statement. They continued on record at any rate till 5.10.1988 and the indelible impact and scar it initial-ly should have created, cannot be said to have got ipso facto dissolved, with the amendments order. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the courts below pacing reliance on the said conduct of the appellant, in this regard, to record a finding against him. (Para 11)
The allegations and counter allegations ex-changed are indicative of the strong hatred and rancour between them. Judged in the background of all surrounding circumstance noticed by the courts below and what has been observed by us supra, the claim appears to us to be too desolate, merely born out of despair rather than based upon any real, concrete or genuine purpose or aim. Once the decree for divorce is confirmed, the relief sought for by the husband for restitution has to inevitably fail. (Para 12)
Cases Reffered:
1. V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) (JT 1993 (6) SC 428) (Para 6)
2. Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (AIR 1975 SC 1534) (Para 5)
2. Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (AIR 1975 SC 1534) (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
D. RAJU, J.
1. The above appeals have been filed by the husband, who lost before both the courts below, challenging the orders granting dissolution of the marriage solemnized between parties on 10th June, 1973 at the instance of the respondent wife and dismissing the petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and custody of the two daughters. The wife filed M.J. petition no. 382 of 1983 under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty said to have been meted out to the wife. In support of her claim, the wife narrated several instances of harassment and nagging attitude, which caused her mental agony and serious set back in health. These were ultimately considered and viewed by the learned family court judge to be mere normal wear and tear of marital life. But at the same time, the allega-tions made by the husband, extensively with enumeration of in-stances and incidents against wife branding her as an unchaste woman, keeping illicit relations – sexually and otherwise with one Ramesh Sawant, the son of a neighbour, though subsequently withdrawn by seeking an amendment of the written statement, weighed with the court to uphold the claim of the wife for di-vorce. The manner of narration and claims of such allegations in the written statement was also considered to be per se indicative of the fact that he made such allegations against her not only when they were living together but also to her relatives, friends and persons whom he had contacted for reconciliation. The learned trial judge was also of the view that notwithstanding the with-drawal, in a reply filed on 17.1.90 also, those allegations were considered to have been substantially reiterated by the husband. Consequently, the family court allowed M.J. petition no. 382 of 1983 on 7.4.1994. As a sequel to the same, the application in M.J. petition no. 66 of 1988 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights and custody of the daughters tried simultane-ously with the other petition came to be rejected by a separate order on that very date of judgment granting dissolution of marriage between parties.
2. The appellant filed family court appeal no. 56 of 1994 against the dismissal of M.J. petition no. 66 of 1988 and family court appeal no. 57 of 1994 against the order grant is not possible any longer. A conscious and deliberate statement levelled with pungency and that too placed on record, through the written statement, cannot so lightly be ignored or brushed aside, to be of no consequence merely because it came to be removed from the record only. The allegations levelled and the incidents enumerated in the case on hand, apart from they being per se cruel in nature, on their own also constitute an admission of the fact that for quite some time past the husband had been persist-ently indulging in them, unrelented and unmindful of its impact. That the husband in this case has treated the wife with intense cruelty is a fact, which became a fait accompli the day they were made in the written statement. They continued on record at any rate till 5.10.1988 and the indelible impact and scar it initial-ly should have created, cannot be said to have got ipso facto dissolved, with the amendments order. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the courts below pacing reliance on the said conduct of the appellant, in this regard, to record a finding against him.
12. The submission on behalf of the appellant that once the decree for divorce is set aside, there may be fresh avenues and scope for reconciliation between parties to revert back to matri-monial home, does not appeal to us in any manner, viewed in the context of the attitude of the wife, seriously contesting the claims of the appellant, by filing her reply in this Court, with enclosures thereto, though not appearing either in-person or through counsel. The allegations and counter allegations ex-changed are indicative of the strong hatred and rancour between them. Judged in the background of all surrounding circumstance noticed by the courts below and what has been observed by us supra, the claim appears to us to be too desolate, merely born out of despair rather than based upon any real, concrete or genuine purpose or aim. Once the decree for divorce is confirmed, the relief sought for by the husband for restitution has to inevitably fail.
13. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit whatsoever in the appeals and consequently they fail and shall stand dis-missed. No costs.
************
1. The above appeals have been filed by the husband, who lost before both the courts below, challenging the orders granting dissolution of the marriage solemnized between parties on 10th June, 1973 at the instance of the respondent wife and dismissing the petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and custody of the two daughters. The wife filed M.J. petition no. 382 of 1983 under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty said to have been meted out to the wife. In support of her claim, the wife narrated several instances of harassment and nagging attitude, which caused her mental agony and serious set back in health. These were ultimately considered and viewed by the learned family court judge to be mere normal wear and tear of marital life. But at the same time, the allega-tions made by the husband, extensively with enumeration of in-stances and incidents against wife branding her as an unchaste woman, keeping illicit relations – sexually and otherwise with one Ramesh Sawant, the son of a neighbour, though subsequently withdrawn by seeking an amendment of the written statement, weighed with the court to uphold the claim of the wife for di-vorce. The manner of narration and claims of such allegations in the written statement was also considered to be per se indicative of the fact that he made such allegations against her not only when they were living together but also to her relatives, friends and persons whom he had contacted for reconciliation. The learned trial judge was also of the view that notwithstanding the with-drawal, in a reply filed on 17.1.90 also, those allegations were considered to have been substantially reiterated by the husband. Consequently, the family court allowed M.J. petition no. 382 of 1983 on 7.4.1994. As a sequel to the same, the application in M.J. petition no. 66 of 1988 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights and custody of the daughters tried simultane-ously with the other petition came to be rejected by a separate order on that very date of judgment granting dissolution of marriage between parties.
2. The appellant filed family court appeal no. 56 of 1994 against the dismissal of M.J. petition no. 66 of 1988 and family court appeal no. 57 of 1994 against the order grant is not possible any longer. A conscious and deliberate statement levelled with pungency and that too placed on record, through the written statement, cannot so lightly be ignored or brushed aside, to be of no consequence merely because it came to be removed from the record only. The allegations levelled and the incidents enumerated in the case on hand, apart from they being per se cruel in nature, on their own also constitute an admission of the fact that for quite some time past the husband had been persist-ently indulging in them, unrelented and unmindful of its impact. That the husband in this case has treated the wife with intense cruelty is a fact, which became a fait accompli the day they were made in the written statement. They continued on record at any rate till 5.10.1988 and the indelible impact and scar it initial-ly should have created, cannot be said to have got ipso facto dissolved, with the amendments order. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the courts below pacing reliance on the said conduct of the appellant, in this regard, to record a finding against him.
12. The submission on behalf of the appellant that once the decree for divorce is set aside, there may be fresh avenues and scope for reconciliation between parties to revert back to matri-monial home, does not appeal to us in any manner, viewed in the context of the attitude of the wife, seriously contesting the claims of the appellant, by filing her reply in this Court, with enclosures thereto, though not appearing either in-person or through counsel. The allegations and counter allegations ex-changed are indicative of the strong hatred and rancour between them. Judged in the background of all surrounding circumstance noticed by the courts below and what has been observed by us supra, the claim appears to us to be too desolate, merely born out of despair rather than based upon any real, concrete or genuine purpose or aim. Once the decree for divorce is confirmed, the relief sought for by the husband for restitution has to inevitably fail.
13. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit whatsoever in the appeals and consequently they fail and shall stand dis-missed. No costs.
************
