Smt. Sushma Shrivastava, J.
This is an appeal u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by the husband/Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 17-1-2006, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 16-A/03, whereby the petition filed by the Appellant u/s 13(l)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce against the Respondent has been dismissed.
It was not disputed in the case that the Respondent was married to the Appellant on 25-2-2001 at Jammu.
Appellant''s case, briefly stated, was that after their marriage, the Respondent came to Bhopal with the Appellant and lived with him hardly for twenty days and then went back to her parents. Again, when the Respondent returned to her matrimonial home at Bhopal with the Appellant, she began to quarrel with him saying that she would not live with Appellant''s mother and sister and insisted the Appellant to live with her separately or at her parent''s house. When the Appellant declined to do so, the Respondent quarrelled with him and returned to her parents. On the intervention of some relatives, the Respondent agreed to live with the Appellant at his place but again after sometime she misbehaved with the Appellant, his mother and sister.
According to the Appellant, Respondent is a stubborn type of lady and she used to stay in the hotel with her relatives at Bhopal and used to go to her parent''s house without the consent of the Appellant and his family members and she always quarrelled and treated him and his family members with cruelty. She also got aborted herself twice against the wishes of the Appellant. Respondent left the house of the Appellant after quarrelling with him and his family members on 10-12-2002 and was not ready to come back to the Appellant. Under the aforesaid circumstances it became impossible for the Appellant to live with the Respondent. Hence, he filed a petition u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Bhopal, seeking a decree of divorce against the Respondent.
The Respondent, denied the above contentions in the written statement filed by her and opposed the petition for divorce. According to the Respondent, she always performed her matrimonial obligations as a dutiful Hindu wife and tried to maintain healthy relations with her husband and his family members. She had gone to Jammu on sad demise of her mother and the Appellant had made baseless and false allegation against her in order to carve out a ground for obtaining a decree of divorce. In fact, the Appellant and his family members were harassing the Respondent for more dowry and Appellant himself had left the Respondent all alone and began to live at different place. When father of the Respondent was apprised of this situation by her, he came to Bhopal and took her away to Jammu with the permission of the parents of the Appellant. Then the Respondent lived at Jammu for four months and came back to Bhopal on 7-12-2002 along with her cousin but she was not allowed to stay in her matrimonial home by the sister and parents of the Appellant. When the Respondent insisted to stay there and refused to go back to Jammu, she was assaulted by the Appellant with a knife and was seriously injured and was ousted from her matrimonial home by the Appellant. The Respondent never aborted herself and the false allegations were levelled against her. In fact, Appellant and his family members had treated the Respondent with cruelty and Appellant was not entitled to any relief.
On the above pleadings, the learned trial Court framed necessary issues and the parties went to trial and adduced their evidence.
The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the Appellant had failed to prove that the Respondent treated the Appellant with cruelty. As such no ground for divorce having been proved against the Respondent the petition for the divorce was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.
Appeal has been preferred inter alia on the ground that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has failed to consider that the Respondent was residing separately without any cause and she misbehaved with the Appellant and his family members, which amounted to cruelty.
Record of the lower Court perused and the evidence adduced in the case is examined. Appellant Aurn Chettriya stated in his evidence given by way of affidavit that after their marriage Respondent lived with the Appellant at Bhopal hardly for twenty days and then she went to her matrimonial home and when she came back to Bhopal for the second time she began to quarrel with him saying that she would not live with his sister and mother and insisted that the Appellant should stay in her parental house. When the Appellant refused, the Respondent quarrelled with him and went back to her parental home. Appellant further stated in his evidence that when the Respondent again came back on the intervention of some relatives, her behaviour and attitude with him and his family members was cruel and she used to go to her parent''s house without the consent of the Appellant and used to stay in the hotels and she also aborted herself without his consent and against his will and left her matrimonial home since last one year.
The Respondent on the other hand refuted all the above allegations in her evidence given by way of affidavit and asserted that she always discharged her matrimonial obligations and tried to maintain good relations with the Appellant and his family members. According to the Respondent, the Appellant and his family members had been harassing her for bringing more dowry and treated her with cruelty. Respondent went to her parent''s home at the sad demise of her mother. In fact the Appellant and his family members had turned her out of her matrimonial house and when she came back on 7-12-2002 to live at her husband''s place at Bhopal she was not permitted to stay in the house and she was assaulted by her husband with a knife and was also forcibly ousted from his house.
Now the Appellant admitted in his cross-examination that after marriage the Respondent had stayed with him for twenty days and thereafter she had gone to her parents house. It is not unusual for the newly wedded wife to go to her parents after her first Bida. Appellant also admitted in his cross-examination that when he brought the Respondent for the second time at Bhopal then he himself had taken her to Jammu on 9-4-2001 due to death of the mother of the Respondent. He further admitted in his cross-examination that the Respondent lived with him at Bhopal from April, 2001 to July 2001 and went to Jammu with his mother at the death of his Grand Mother. He also admitted in his cross-examination that the Respondent lived with him and his family till Dussehra of 2001 and then went to Jammu with her father after obtaining permission of Appellant''s parents. It is thus clear that the Respondent went to Jammu to her parent''s house either with Appellant or his mother or with the permission of Appellant''s parents.
It also transpires from the facts elicited in the cross-examination of the Appellant that when the Respondent came to Bhopal in December, 2002 she had lodged criminal complaint against him, and his father and sister. In view of these facts, the contention of the Respondent appears to have some substance that she was not permitted to stay in her matrimonial house by the Appellant and his family members when she came back to Bhopal in December, 2002.
Thus the Appellant has virtually failed to prove that the Respondent had been living at her parent''s house of her own volition and without any rhyme or reason and went there without the consent of the Appellant or his family members.
Appellant has also not cited any specific or concrete instances so as to duly prove that the Respondent used to stay in the hotels at Bhopal and adopted hostile attitude towards the Appellant. Appellant has also failed to establish that the Respondent aborted herself against the will of the Appellant. The history of abortion recorded in the medical prescription (Ex-P-1) of the Respondent does not by itself lead to any such inference.
So far as the Appellant''s contention that the Respondent did not like to live with his sister and mother and wanted to live separately with her husband, these are the ordinary wear and tears of the married life and matters of adjustment between husband and wife and they can hardly amount to cruelty on the part of the Respondent.
The Apex Court in MPLJ 2006(3) page J in the matter of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli has examined the concept of matrimonial cruelty as enunciated from time to time in various judicial decisions. It would be useful to reproduce the following observations made and reiterated by Their Lordships in the aforesaid judgment:
To Constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce.
In the light of the above observations, on careful and critical scrutiny of the evidence led by both the parties, it is found that no such serious facts have come on record so as to conclude that the Respondent had been treating the Appellant with cruelty or such conduct that it had become impossible for the Appellant to live with the Respondent.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court committed no error in holding that the Appellant failed to establish that the Respondent treated the Appellant with cruelty. As such no ground for divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, having been proved against the Respondent the trial Court committed no error in dismissing the petition for divorce filed by the Appellant.
This appeal, therefore, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Decree be drawn up accordingly.
