Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the order of the learned Family Court No. 3, Jaipur passed on 20.12.2017, whereby the learned Family Court had allowed the petition filed by the respondent husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 8.5.2014 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Initially, the appellant behaved properly but after a few days, her behaviour towards the respondent-husband and his family changed drastically. She started acting as per her mother’s directions, did not do any household chores and always created an environment of stress. The appellant also pressurized the respondent to throw his sister and her daughter from their house. Due to the ill-deeds of the appellant, the father of the respondent asked the appellant and the respondent to live separately as per the appellant’s wish.
3. Even after living separately in Dausa, the behaviour of the appellant did not change and on 25.11.2014, she without informing the respondent went to her parental house in Jaipur early in the morning along with all the jewellery and cash. During the attempts of bringing the appellant back, the respondent took her to Jawahar Circle on 25.7.2015 but their conversation was continuously interrupted by the appellant’s mother. As it got late in the night, the respondent took a room in B.L. Hotel at Tonk Phatak for night stay. The appellant in the morning told everything to her mother. The appellant’s parents on 26.7.2015 lodged a false case of kidnapping against the respondent and his parents and made them suffer lot of mental agony. On 27.7.2015, the appellant along with her parents and relatives went to the respondent’s house and started shouting loudly due to which all the people of the colony came to the respondent’s house. The appellant’s mother called the police and the respondent was asked to take the appellant to their house in Dausa. But on 30.7.2015, the appellant without any valid reason came back to Jaipur and gave up all her marital relations. The respondent tried all the possible means to bring her back but the appellant lodged a false case against the respondent and his family. Due to the cruel behaviour of the appellant, it was not possible to stay with her and therefore, it was prayed for the dissolution of their marriage.
4. Appellant wife, in her written statement, denied the allegations levelled by the respondent and stated that immediately after their marriage, the respondent’s family started cursing the appellant and her family for lack of arrangements in their wedding. Also, the respondent and his family demanded Rs. 2,00,000 and a car and treated her with cruelty. The appellant stated that the respondent denied to cohabit with her. The appellant never had any objection to the respondent’s sister and her daughter living with them. The family members of the respondent used to beat the appellant, she was made to stay inside the house, she was abused and an advertisement in the newspaper to evict the appellant was published by the respondent’s father.
5. The appellant further stated that the respondent husband forcefully took her to Dausa where there was no source of food and water. When asked for basic amenities, the appellant was beaten and thrown out of the house by the respondent. On 25.7.2015, the appellant was forcefully made to sit in the respondent’s car and he switched off her cellphone. He took her to a hotel at Tonk Road where he used force on her, when the appellant shouted for help she was threatened to be killed, her sister would be raped and her father and brother would be killed. On 27.5.2015, when the appellant went to her in-laws place the respondent shouted at his mother to lock the main door of the house. On this incident, the appellant informed the police and only after police’s interference the respondent agreed to keep the appellant with her and took her to Dausa. On 30.7.2015, the appellant was again thrown out of the respondent’s house (Dausa). The appellant went to respondent’s house many times but the house was locked and also the respondent never answered her calls. The appellant alleged that the respondent under a conspiracy usurped all the dowry articles of the appellant and wanted to take decree of divorce on false issues and earn money by the means of second marriage. Therefore, the divorce petition be rejected.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Family Court:
“(1) Whether the non petitioner wife after marital rituals behaved the petitioner with cruelty?
7. The respondent examined himself as AW-1 and as witnesses AW-2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, AW-3-Yogesh Parashar and AW-4 Mahesh Dixit and appellant examined herself as NAW-1 and the witnesses NAW-2 Manju Sharma.
8. Learned Family Court heard the arguments and allowed the petition filed by the respondent and passed a decree of divorce against the appellant.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 is illegal and arbitrary and against the material available on record.
10. Learned Family Court while passing the impugned judgment ignored the mala fides, after thoughts and the fact that the entire allegation in the petition are based on concocted story. Appellant had not committed cruelty to the respondent and his family members. She never denied for physical relationship. Respondent’s father expelled them from his property as per his own wish and not on account of the behaviour of the appellant. She had fulfilled her marital obligations. Respondent and his family members tortured her for want of dowry. Respondent had denied to establish physical relations for want of Rs.2,00,000 and a car. She had not levelled allegation of impotency against the respondent. Respondent had given notice in which he had not mentioned the allegation of impotency. She had not lodged false complaint against the respondent because after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC and the case was still lying pending against him.
11. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that appellant had gone to her matrimonial home on 27.7.2015 but respondent and his family members had closed the door. So, she had called the police. Respondent’s father wrongly initiated criminal proceedings under Sections 107 and 106 against her. Learned Family Court had not considered these facts and passed the decree of divorce against her. So, this appeal be allowed and decree of divorce be set-aside.
12. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order of the learned Family Court. Appellant lodged a criminal case against the respondent levelling allegation of kidnapping and rape against him but after investigation, these allegations were not found correct. Appellant had also levelled allegation of impotency. Her behaviour was cruel with respondent and his family members. So, appeal be dismissed.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the impugned order and the material available on record.
14. Appellant had lodged false complaint against the respondent for the offence of kidnapping and rape. These allegations were not found correct in the investigation. Appellant also alleged the respondent being impotent. She had left the respondent’s house of her own Will. Respondent’s father had expelled his son from his property due to the behaviour of appellant. Appellant had broken her bangles and removed the vermillion (sindoor). So, the learned Family Court rightly came to the conclusion that these acts of the appellant amount to cruelty.
15. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, reported in I (2013) DMC 458 (SC)=II (2013) SLT 338=2013 (5) SCC 226, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the Court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.”
16. In the case of Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, reported in I (2010) DMC 411 (SC)=I (2010) SLT 759=2010(4) SCC 476, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it may take a different form. At
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
times, it may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. 20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety—it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words. That possibly explains why Lord Denning in Sheldon v. Sheldon, (1966) 2 WLR 993, held that categories of cruelty in matrimonial cases are never closed.” In the light of the laws discussed and analysis of the facts, we find no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.