1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant Deedar Devi (wife) against the order of the learned Family Court, Sikar passed on 10.04.2018 in
matrimonial Civil Misc. Case No.175/2014 filed by respondent Jhabarmal Sheshma (husband) u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for
short ""the Act"") against Deedar Devi (wife) whereby the learned Family Court allowed the civil case and annulled the marriage with effect from the
date of the order i.e. 10.04.2018. Being aggrieved with the said order, appellant wife filed this appeal.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.02.2017 at Dausar according to the Hindu rites
and customs. The spouses were blessed with a male child, namely Harshit on 29.11.2009. On asking from the appellant wife by the respondent
husband as to why she had been having long conversations with unknown persons, she did not give any reply for the same. The respondent husband
took it that his wife was having a suspicious character. Wife started saying that she was educated and would not do household work. The appellant
wife delivered a male child in Janana Hospital, Sikar, from where she went to her parental house at Dausar and not at the house of respondent
husband at Rajpura. On account of this, the behaviour of the appellant wife became rude and aggressive towards him. Appellant wife insulted the
respondent husband by saying that ""You are not B.A pass"", whereas ""I am M.A. & B.Ed."" So, he stopped visiting her parental house. The appellant
wife lodged a false criminal case for the offences of demand of dowry.
3. In reply, the appellant wife denied all the facts except her marriage and birth of her son Harshit. She stated that respondent husband had demanded
one lakh rupees and an Alto car. She submitted that respondent husband and his family members expelled her from the house on 05.04.2009. She
submitted that criminal case for offences u/s 498A, 406 and 323 Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 was also pending
against her husband. So, the petition be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments advanced by both the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Family Court :-
1. Whether behaviour of respondent wife towards petitioner was cruel; physically as well as mentally. So, petitioner was entitled to get divorce?
2. Whether petitioner had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and Alto car as dowry and for this he had tortured the respondent wife physically and mentally and
wanted to solemnized second marriage, therefore, this divorce petition be dismissed?
3. Relief.
5. The respondent husband examined himself as AW-1, Ram Chandra (AW-2), Lala Ram, (AW-3) and Jhabarmal S/o Shri Bega Ram (AW-4) and
exhibited three documents.
6. The appellant wife examined herself as NAW 1, Geeta Devi (NAW-2), Narainram (NAW-3), Hanuman Prasad Sharma (NAW-4), Balbeer
(NAW-5) and Vijender (NAW-6) and exhibited eleven documents.
7. Learned Family Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, decided both the issues in favour of the respondent husband and against the
appellant wife and therefore, annulled the marriage solemnized between them with effect from the order i.e. 10.04.2018.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant wife submitted that the impugned order dated 10.04.2018 is illegal, arbitrary and against the material available on
record. He submitted that the facts narrated in the divorce petition regarding cruelty are baseless and frivolous.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Family Court had not considered that the appellant did not go to her in-laws
house on 05.04.2009 and a compromise was arrived at between them. After that, she went back to join her husband in her in-laws house. The said
compromise was only entered by the respondent husband because he was fearing prosecution in criminal case registered against him.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Family Court had only considered the fact of acquittal in criminal case. Such
order of acquittal had been challenged by the appellant wife by way of appeal which is still lying pending.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Family Court decided the petition while taking into consideration the statement
made in the compromise against the appellant wife. The learned Family Court while appreciating the evidence found that the respondent had failed to
submit any proof regarding payment of Rs.1,65,000/-.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Family Court arbitrarily presumed that if, at all, the compromise was entered
into, so as to evade the prosecution of the criminal case, then the respondent would not have purchased a plot jointly in the name of the appellant. It
was also submitted that the learned Family Court on its own presumptions decided the divorce petition in favour of the respondent husband.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant in her reply clearly stated that she had only signed the compromise
agreement at the behest of respondent husband and had not asked any one to incorporate any such statement made in the compromise agreement.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that respondent and his witnesses had not uttered any fact which proved cruelty and had not
exhibited any document regarding complaints made by the appellant to his higher officials. He submitted that the learned Family Court had wrongly
arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had treated respondent husband with cruelty.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order of the learned Family Court. He
supported the order passed by the learned Family Court.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appellant had not fulfilled matrimonial obligations and he had not attended the
condolence meeting and marriages of respondent's relatives.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appellant wife had lodged false case of dowry against the respondent in which he
was acquitted by the competent court on 20.02.2018.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that behavior of the appellant was cruel and disrespectful towards him and his family
members. He submitted that the appellant wife had left the matrimonial home without any information. He also submitted that he had made complaints
to the higher officials of the respondent that he had taken leave but not for attending the marriage of his cousin sister. He submitted that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the learned family Court's order. So, the appeal be dismissed.
19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the impugned order and the material available
on record.
20. The appellant and her witnesses had failed to prove that she was tortured on account of dowry. The appellant had lodged a case of dowry against
the respondent in which he was acquitted. The appellant had also made false complaints against the respondent to his higher authorities. The appellant
had not fulfilled her matrimonial obligations. She had not attended the condolence meeting and marriages which were solemnized in her in-laws house.
The appellant and the respondent had entered into a compromise (Ex. A-19) in which the appellant stated that respondent would not meet his parents
without her permission. The respondent had filed petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent had withdrawn the said
petition but the appellant did not withdraw the criminal case against the respondent. The respondent in his evidence clearly stated that the appellant
frequently abused him.
21. The Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, reported in AIR 1988 SC 121, observed as under:
Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words ""treated the petitioner with cruelty"". The word ""cruelty"" has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been denied.
It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is
a course of 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 to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulty. First the inquiry must
begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment on 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. There may, however, be cases whether the conduct complained of itself is bad enough
and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the 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.
22. The Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, reported in 1994 SCC(1) 337, has defined mental cruelty in the following manner:
Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as
would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such
as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the
parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other
relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to
cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of
accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.
23. It is evident from the record that behaviour of the appellant wife towards respondent husband and his family members was cruel and disrespectful.
The conduct and behaviour of the appellant wife comes in the category of cruelty. The learned Family Court had not committed any error to decide
the issue of cruelty against the appellant wife. The order of the learned Family Court does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. So, the appeal is
devoid of merit and the same is liable to be rejected.
24. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
25. Therefore, the appeal along with stay application is dismissed.
