D.S.R. Varma, J.@mdashHeard both sides.
2. This appeal is preferred by the husband challenging the order and decree, passed in F.C.O.P. No. 70 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, Nellore (H.M.O.P. No. 93 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore).
3. The Appellant is the husband of the Respondent.
4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the Appellant will be referred to as "the husband" and the Respondent as ''the wife."
5. The wife was the Petitioner before the Family Court. She filed the petition u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of her marriage with the Respondent therein by granting a decree of divorce.
6. The Court below, after going into the merits of the case and also basing on the evidence, both oral and documentary, on record, granted the decree of divorce.
7. In the said O.P., the averments of the wife are that her marriage with the husband was solemnised in the year 1990 and for a couple of years they lived happily, but over a period of time, the husband was addicted to vices like alcoholism and drugs and in such mental and physical state, he was abusing her in filthy language and was beating her rudely, as a result of which, she was apprehending danger at his hands. It has been further stated that the husband was moving with people of low class in the state of drunkenness and was staying in hotels with such people causing nuisance to the inmates of the hotels. Therefore, in nutshell, it was the cruelty in different ways that was shown as the reason for seeking the decree of divorce.
8. The husband filed the counter wherein, while denying the allegations made in the petition, it has been stated that the wife was not amicable to him and to his parents and because of the illegal advice of her parents, she used to pick up quarrels frequently; that not stopping there, she used to insist on them to dispose of the properties, as a result of which, the house property also was disposed of; that later, she got some properties purchased in her name and taking advantage of the situation, she started harassing and neglected him. Further, it was the specific averment of the husband that he was put to mental agony at the instance of the wife and that it was he who, in fact, was necked out of the house, but the wife started making propaganda that he was a drunkard and a drug addict and eventually, he prayed the Court below that the O.P. be dismissed.
9. On the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed the following points for determination:
1.Whether the Respondent subjected the Petitioner to cruelty, thereby entitling her to get divorce as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
10. In order to substantiate her case, the wife got examined as P.W-1 and a neighbour as P.W-2 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. The husband examined himself as R.W-1 and no documentary evidence was marked on his behalf.
11. Both the wife and the husband had spoken to what has been stated in their respective pleadings in the petition and the counter. However, it is very important to note the admission of the husband, who was examined as R.W-1, that his father-in-law was paying the bills of the hotels for his stay and other purposes.
12. In normal course, that itself may not be a sufficient ground to grant a decree of divorce unless and until the cruelty is established beyond doubt.
13. It is settled law that cruelty sometimes may also be established by leading evidence, both oral and documentary. In the instant case, it is Exs.A-1 and A-2, which are the bill and the certificate, respectively, issued by a hotel by name D.R. Uttama.
14. It is to be seen that the husband admitted the said two documents under Exs.A-1 and A-2. As a consequence of admission, what is obvious is that the husband was staying in hotels without paying money and the bills raised by the hotels were being paid by his father-in-law. This shows the conduct of the husband, which, in other words shows the irresponsible attitude of the husband to his wife and her family and the said conduct was not only to the liking of the wife but also to the society as a whole. This kind of conduct has to be essentially termed as cruelty to the wife, inasmuch as, the social denigration of the husband would have its serious impact on the family life, particularly on the wife. The wife naturally expects not always an excellent status from the husband, but, at least, a responsible and disciplined life in the society and to her as well.
15. The staying of the husband in the hotel and not paying the bills is one of the aspects, which had been stated in the petition and was admitted by the husband himself in his examination as R.W-1. That apart, the statements made by the husband in the counter also have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the conduct of the husband and the extent of cruelty meted out to the wife.
16. It is always not necessary that all the averments shall be made only during the course of evidence. In matrimonial disputes, the conduct of the parties some times will be spoken to by the parties themselves and some times could be perceived from the statements made in the petition or the counter, as the case may be, filed before the Court.
17. In this case, in the counter, filed by the husband before the Court below, it was stated as under:
Three months back the Petitioner and her parents along with their henchmen attempted to kill the Respondent to have the benefit of the LIC Policy. Due to the said adamant attitude of the Petitioner, the Respondent has been put to much mental agony. The Petitioner has also necked the Respondent from the house and began making propaganda that the Respondent is a drunkard and he used to beat the Petitioner and harassing her and he went away from the house for himself. The Respondent was got spoiled at the instance of the Petitioner and her parents who have used to administering him sedative drugs by force and grabbing all his money and valuables by keeping him unconsciousness state. Thus, the Petitioner and her parents with her henchmen conspired together and grabbed all his monies and valuables for their selfish motives. Suppressing all those fact, the Petitioner got filed the above HMOP with all false and frivolous allegations.
Again at paras 9 and 10 it has been stated as under:
The Petitioner and her people played fraud and mischief and deceived the Respondent and his mother and his sister in order to have unlawful gain.
The Petitioner herself harassed the Respondent with cruel attitude and caused both mental and physical harassment. In order to protect the properties illegally obtained and in order to cover up her illegal acts and latches, the Petitioner got filed the above HMOP with all false allegations.
18. It was the further allegation of the husband that the wife had purchased some properties with a substantial sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, grabbed from him. About four house site plots were shown as the properties purchased by the wife with the monies that actually belonged to the husband.
19. From the above allegations, what is obvious is that the husband, instead of supporting his case by adducing evidence or making the statements in the counter, had resorted to make some serious allegations against his wife. The above excerpts are a typical example and manifestation of the ill-will, dislike and despising attitude of the husband to the wife.
20. In normal course, though the initial responsibility is on the Petitioner who makes the allegation seeking divorce, it is equally the responsibility of the opposite party/spouse to repel such allegations and substantiate the same through oral or documentary evidence.
21. In the instant case also, though initially the obligation is on the wife, the husband also is expected to be equally under obligation for disproving the case of the wife and further establish that there was no cruelty on his part. The cruel attitude though was spoken to by the wife and the husband against each other, in the evidence, more could be seen from the above averments made in the counter filed by the husband.
22. A Division Bench of this Court in
23. In view of the above legal position and following the said judgment (1 supra), we are of the view that the fact of the husband spending time in the hotels without paying the bills and the same being paid by his father-in-law would prove the disrespect of the husband to the family and the wife and the same amounts to causing mental agony, which in other words to be treated as mental cruelty.
24. Added to the above, the excerpts in the counter, as noted above, would throw some additional light regarding the conduct of the husband and those averments though not established, in our considered view, are to be treated as sufficient material to point out the mental cruelty on the part of the husband towards the wife, in which event, dissolution of the marriage and the consequential decree of divorce is the only solution as was the conclusion rightly arrived at by the Court below and we find no reason calling for interference of this Court with the impugned order.
25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
