A Anil Kumar S/O C Anantharam vs Vanishri A on 29 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court

Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna

?O

IN mu; HIGH c.:ous~.:*r om<;A1<NA*;'A1<.A AT 1:sA1mA;_,o:1_<..1,.:s1:;;:;':'<a;§'L:_:4 zi§*i:{:-;:« _  1'
AN:::7.__  1'  4 
mu; H{)N"'Biﬁ~:§ MRS. -JU-§:§.1'l(3;ElA1;;§;'»'.!§A{5f}51$;§§'1v'é~iN;3 
M.F.A.  
Nbibimmbimbﬁg   _ _   

A ANIL l<_UMAl{ es/0 (;H5;'%AN':'u:1,1_;4;i:§ig;§;_:afLr

 " MEDICOM SOLUTIONS PV'l'.L-'I'D.,
 -7f;3i;'1::,Es:LE;<:':'R::3Ni.181]O3 ON THE



FILE} L)?' 'i'HE£ l ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, l4'AMlLY1 C()UH'l',
BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITEON 
A?F'ELLANT HEREIN UIS 13(1){ia_} AND  'i'3 i'.ND.U

MARRIAGE ACT PRAYING TO GRANT 

DIVGRCE.

'Ibis appcai having been i1ca1Mfi'a;3,Ci ir¢se;I*:;éC{«.ifo§f't§fdt;i'3, bi' A'

this day, Nagaraihna J, pronounc-fad $112, foﬂowingf: " 

1.; u D;(W33_M ER 

This appeal is. filed  sgaﬂengng
the juciwent and'  :L,§{}{}5 passed in
M.c.No.:a1/23:03    Judge, Family
Court    Eﬁetition filed by the
 A' diasdiution of mariiage with

the  ' "(JiiSmi$seé.

2.  ";§.~i1' the  (if cenvenience, the parties shaii be

   t§§"i1j terms of their status befere the trial court.

 'i'i1é §;e:iriﬁ0ner was marrie-:1 to tha respondent as

per rites and Customs 01}. 24.10.1993 at

Hiaﬁjuilianthanagar, Bangalore. Aftezr their marztiage,

K _;;%a.rtit:s started residing at iéajajilaagar t:3a1″1ga.£9:’e- 10.

ACCOI’C§iI1g is tha peﬁﬁaner, initiaily their relationship
was cordiai, but aftcr a ft’-:w mcrnths, the petitioner Ibund

that the reswndent was very reserved and armgant and

ﬁx’

of suspicieus Character. That she used to quaifiiﬂ with

the petitioner and his family members ﬁingts

tolerated by them hoping that thillgﬁ

ﬂorxnal in future. That out:;.{1»-E T

resporasdent gave birth to a.vf¢n1aie ﬁ: hi1d 0;’; i99’S$.’ia{fi0%»

is named as De:eptha.A. péﬁﬁoneﬁ
Went to Muscat and the
re$po11dent and ti1§:_ in September
1995. ” upto £3.12}. and at
Muscat and secured a job in
/~ p.111. Actzording t9
the iéspondent started Working, £161′

a7t§;i.’ti1d.e ﬁfrerst. She did not respect the

did not take care: of the child properly

~_ occzasi-{>113 the Iespondent condemned the

;§étiti€§;.1e:”Vi11 front of his ﬁiends and Wﬁii-WiSh61’S. The

” :’~3§p{§i1de11t 1″1€’S?(*§I’ {med ta serve food to the petitioner
he requﬁsted hm’ to do so and that she had

” devctleped Sheri: temper aﬁd ego and used 11(5) behave like

$2;

a dictater and that whatever she said was agreed and
a’\

the petiiiienerr was wrong. She get 3 transfer of her job

/E9,

\””*”

from Musmt to Bangalore in the sister (:o1″1c<.=:r;:1""oI" LLC

at Muscat stating that she does not Want :.to.'"tf,1e

company of the petitioner. 'I'ha_t.. {ﬂail}?

reconciliation roeetings heid tfotsvooxg i:1j1e:f§.1e V

we1i–WisherS to re-unite Vtfsom, oi:

account of the armgant. of in
August, 2002 the Bangalore
along with the petitioner was
mnsuaioeﬂ ‘ Section 13(1)(ia)
and dirooolution of the marriage

4. A VL¢”‘-§4.1’i.€I’,V from the Fa1nﬂy Court, the

” and filed her statement of

o ;”objor;tior;$5″”to the pemion acimitting her marriage with

* me on 24.10.1993 and contended that the

pa1″eii’z:s.Vof the petitioner demanded for jewellery and

* oiismr items apart ﬁvom wrist watch and soil: at the time

of the marriage and démied the ailegations made in the

pxetition. She has also stated that the Case of the

petitioner is i:{ZtC£}I1gI'”i}0’L1S inasmuch as he has ailegod

cmieity against tho rezsponoent and in the other brreath

f a

stated that the respondent has. refused to jeir: the

petitioner. if the ailegation of the cruelty

there was me queetien of caning upon tt_1e_ to

join the petitioner. Aeeording ieiae

leave Muscat and return to ijangaiere can ‘i;>1″”the= ~’

cruel conduct and adultefoee cf .’:}getjt.iener.

According to the ‘1«€~;3$5 daughter
was born andﬁhe ﬁuseat in -June,
1995 1995 and mi
dune 1316 parties was
quite:: _ >:*ae§§;,;,r;1;dent was working in Oman
Liomptitezg – in the Software

i}e1§§ai’tinent.”‘ AA..V_B:{1t the trouble siarted in April 2002,

w_h:en._ “‘£he4’p;etitio11e;* recruited an Assistant by name

~.M’;§:§;aVV was Werking as the Assistant (3eI’1era.£

Menager Capital Insurance §~3e1*vices at that time and

” V’ V’ , “Iviaya ﬁaﬁya was already to one Yegesh Maﬂya

was werking in Ciuif i-iotei, Muscat, but they had

I10 issues. According tea the respondent, after Maya

Maﬂya joined as Assistant to the petitioner in his eﬁfiee,

the petitiener stopped his seeial activities and did not

mingle with any body including the respondent herein.

He wound frequently make calls at odd houzee

night and she used to caji the

and when the respondent enq11_i_1*e(i__ab0Lif e

the petitioner, he used to shouf»et7f1ef

purely busfmess talks else, 1 ‘?.£fhe”mtiﬁo11e:*~

used to go out a Ma3fj;3;._§j’f;d”‘iVheﬁ s§1e ciuesﬁoned
about the said gaze exp1a1″§at.ie11
that she we,e–::if1i:S ‘ “Many times, the
her that they had

see1’£.__the — __ Maya in various restaurants.
when the petitiofier to U.S., he was in touch with

As sV'{1e_%e1:,V the reiatienship between the petitioner

. jaea -rieepondent was siewiy being cut oil’ by the

he stopped having lunch and dinner at

£:xe%:;*1..e’;o,V “Evie weuid come vezy iate ﬁ*om office anti

” » AA eengxetimes he would ge back to work even in the nights,

which time Maya aiso was present. ‘i’het. the

‘ tether of the respondent also noticed the strange

befiaviour of the petitioner when he visited Muscat and

he tried to advise the petitiener, but nothing worked.

‘?

Later, the respondent, her daughter

respondemfs father returned to Bangaiore f<_);1*""a: _

and despite the petitioner wanted the to ~ V.

ta iiangalore, the respondent 1?_¢-er, }~1e:1E;Ee_,

went alone to Bembay stat1if1g_Vtt1ai:'-he ¥1a<i :é;Q1neVVeI?§§'ieia§.:V: *

work and Maya had gene same
time and the respo:1Vcie;.e't.i21:te;%:.» the petitioner
and Maya i1ac§_:11;_et returned
to Muscat 'betitioner stopped
taﬂ<:ing—-m. away from her and
as a relationship ceased. That

in July took leave and retmmeci to

V. A. i;5a;1€ga:£_ei1'-72V' « petiﬁoﬁer neither made any

' 1:e'ierphQIie .3101" contacted the responcient. when the

feependeiiit éiﬁbnned her parents about the petitioner,

they Were' shocked to iearn abeut the behavieur of the

A '*?_ ' géfxgioner and vmen they spoke to him, he made up his

egwn innecexn story. Later, when the petitioner reaijsed

that his in~le.Ws came to mew about his Inisdeecie, he

caiied the xeeponcient to agwee for divorce, which came
as a rude shock to the respondent. $he ret.urne<:i to

Muscat as her leave was over. On her returzl to.j'Me,usCat,

the petitioner told her that he was ring

gven to him by Maya. Later on, the

know that Maya was preglaet

and she had resigned job. _
petitioner got. Maya home t_eidV'ti1eV':1'esp.§e;{ﬁiVent that
he was 'iv'v£"A1eVAvVres;)ondent
slﬂfered mental ti{:i'V.. téiie'-"V"eonduct of the
petitioner' and returned to
of the petitioner did
;{1ot:';geeeA1A)i;"%'»t31e._ the reepondent estayed with
her eereizte aiong with her daughter

Léfecﬁaeha wheﬁéas etudying in 4'-'*1 stanciard in Bangalore

.' _V»Vtf;e-.éye¥:jtieI1er had ehewn no concern for her. 'flue

2 i'eepex§'iie:1t; eiater iearxxt tlmt Maya had retutmeci to

for delivery and that the petitioner visited

AA 'Tlvlanegjalore thrice.

5}. According to the respendent, her monies are in

joint account and her j€’i&?(3iI€I”‘}” and ether heueeheld
axﬁeies are in the euetedy ef the peﬁtioner and the

getitiener has not taken any step te maintain the minor

daughter. The petition has been ﬁled sniy t§)’s’.1’_f:1’s;r_Vass

and vex the respondent and therefore,

sought dismissal of the petition,

6. In support of his case, i:i*1s1’p.c=:titi:.j1_~;si’~ V’

himseif as PW 1 and got the;

respondent exs1nins§1~~..nsrss’ifA 1 gnt marked
.*:}xs.R1 and :<1(a) to (1).

7, On record’, the trial

seurt .t§j;e i;{§.i;i07féif:;1g’ii)r consideration:

‘ 4’ v§§;s”‘pstiﬁoner–husband prsves
A That htfiét :”s£)nndent–wﬁIs while isading
1sa::iea%%’:us: with him she has treated
cruelty and thus he is

_ sizﬁtisd for dissoiutibn of maxriage and
.. {iésres of divorce as corxtsmplated
under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act?

ii} Whether there is more than two yams
dessrljtm between husband and wizfe
inzmsdisteiy preceding the pressntatis11
sf this petition and thus as
csntexnplatsd under Section 13(13(ib) st’

ﬁg,

«I9-

Hindu Marriage Act the pe1:itiener_.._i_s

entitled for a decree 91′ divorce)?

iii} To what; order?

On consicierixzg the

1 and ’12 are answsred in fctxe imgzative ‘t§1e’1′:l«58:I3fii£§,:
Court dismissed the _1:’:eii1g_ by the
said order 0i’disn1i$ $21, 1.:he§péti};i§§:1«afr i’1aSHp IV’€f(“}IT6d this
appeal. ‘

8. directed the parties to
be ~’1f:lf::§.'<::. pa_11:tW1;<) explore the possibility sf

$etﬂém%:nt. 4. }.'2.2(){}8 in arder 1:9 explore

pcsﬁibilifty bf séigilement, the matter was adgourned

i',.;§UU9 and suhsequentiy, on 22.1.2009,

31.1.2909. sguring this period, the

did not appear, but the respoxideni: appeareti

V» * :.t1"1a comzsei far {ha appeliaﬂt inibrmed that the

ﬁairties sheuid speak to each ether and resonciie

between thﬁmselves. Since the appﬁliant was not if} a
positien to be present before the Court on acsceunt of his
assigxment at bembay, the respondent however,

-13-

categericaily stated before us that despite Wlia}: had

transpired in ﬁrs: past, she was

appeliant and Wt: were also gvan an i:::;;jr:3:sa=iio;”1′ by me

counsel for the appeilant th;§t: $30 ‘L

interested in c£3nt1I1ui;}.Tg_ﬁ’ »§?€i§ati01%W:1i\%§.
respoﬁdent. But no *;§%::§a;,;’:Izacie
the appellant beit:’r é_”fE–t”;e he to appear
before the cgurt. 1 13.. the comlsei for
the made their
V’ V’ H

9. “‘;e§g§11ed counsel for the appeiiami,

the i«’22ii::3.4:§i};.V ta consider the evizlamce of {£161

V_a5;gp§§1iaa;1t z§?’i’£;?2…¥?f?£.vﬂfd to. erueity of the I’¢f3Sp{)1″1(§(i3I}’€. and

‘ that since 2’~’mgu$t, 20013, the respondent

.’ . :cii’eés,t.!:-;14t<§9:f§;_ appellant. Tha appeﬂant had requested

the i"<:sp0nden's; to join him on many eccasions anti that

" _ V Lfefcoixciiiation meetings were 3159 held, but the

1'1=:sp0I1dent did 1101: need to the advice 01' the weliw
WiShC1'S on account af am"oga_ne. 01”: account of the

fact that. 5:136 msponderit w*aS woriéng and eaxzuing an

/..

-13..

income, her attitude: was very arregarit and she made
fzaise aﬂegations against the appeilant. That.~ t%’}€ trial

Court hag fzaileci to appreciate the tjcgzf” ma

petitioner–appei1ant and has eneneousﬁ’

petition, which requi1*t%:s to revgfrseci

10. Per cantra, it is of the
respondent that 3:16 i§.t-~:a*éni’mi”g-.tAto jbm, tiie appellant
despite: his past the aliegaﬁons

made: by xhér am faise that there

was” tﬁﬂhﬂlﬁ of the respondent ﬂlid
neit%1é1*..aL :r any interference in this apptital.

\”\°w:.;;.

\~..

-13..

32. The petitioner has examined hi!11S€1f as PW 1. In
his affidavit by way of examination–in–chieI’, nu; has
reiterated the C'(}1″1t€1″1tS of the petiticm
by us in detajj. A H

13. The main grievance of the .

respondent is with i1c=:-1″A’a!::t1tL_:<:i'é,V .i::~€i1":g L'

short tampered perspn, .330 qrxéirrcji ﬁver trivial
things. At Muscat six? fgm; she did not take

proper care child and was

haviizg :;1– 5 set. She suspected his
ci1a1*acter4__aI1§iV"th§é1}eibr(_3 he had suffered cruelty' at the

§1a.2§}'ciVsr*@i' thé"reé$ponrient'. 11:). his further examinat;'ion~in»

» :¢i:I_iV<f:"£"._i"1s: stated at his instance the I'€SpO1"l(3i€I1t

" eoursa.

1%.. if; .i1i$ c:r$sm<:xa1nir1atio11 he has stated that from

A t.!.ji:;e of marriage: tiii 1996 the marital relationship
" gcmd but from 1996 onwards their relationship has

* -1:10: been gecxi. He has also admitted that thaugh the

respondent is wiliirig 1:0 1'€Sid€ with him, he is not read}«'

-14..

to live: w1t11 the I'(3’Sp0I}d6I1t. He has also admitt1é}:§.Tﬁ1at

one Maya Mayya was appointed as his Assj.$t;-1:_j1t’__’L”ij’

oﬁice and Um: certain writings in the as

3223,2131 are hers. He has howeVer,’_A§i¢3}i¢d’:

calling the said Maya, i3or_a31_y ” L.

office vmrk and that even nigﬁts he was

in USA on work, he -£0 ~-.I__’;tT=,”1*’.:1%’r the purpose of

his oﬁiciai work. rfenied the letter
dated that there was
no

15. Malxga is I1’18.I”I’i6d and has a
time empioyee ofi1is oiifictz,

but; 3313 is.’ woirking on part time basis and that

th_ é1*e §:§I1″:0″«3feiat::onsi1ip between them. He has alas z’e—

itézfafe’d°:§;a£’:;”i§ie respondent has been Cruei to him and

ht-Shoe ~:fé1’2ei’ eught to be ganted to him.

” A1€>.” As apposed ‘£0 this, the resyondent 13:; her aﬁidavit

£3}? way of exami:1ation~in–chieI° izaﬁ 21′-:~i1:erat&d the

CO?{1t€3T1’€.S 0:11:31’ state11:1en.t: of oiyjections and has stated

zé

-15-

that tin April 2002 there was no queetien of her
euspectmg the ﬁdelity and character of the petitio11er at

Bangalore and Muscat and the mm ble sta:1:e:14.¢3Vi;1J§§:Mj”o1:1

Aprii 2002 when the petitioner was woriijlggles’

Genera} Manager recruited 0I:eAA9VN}.aya_.”e;S” ‘Vﬂvssistaént .

and thereafter he stepped ueiiiid

net mingle with e:1*1}.,rl;><3t1j;vé"'-~..§:u1<:i the

respondent; also. when queefiioned aeeutehiefibehavieur
by the respondent, iiiie that she was his

good friend a::1'd.__tr1a{i"eiiei:i w 1r2e;3.V_1':e in U.S.A he was

in <Vi:pnstatz{"'V.t::x_L 1c£f1"-iééitll' her. As a resuﬁ of his

reiatio1ie§:iepVVsa?it._Ef.£\}ie}§§g;; he would come iate t0 the heuse

fr€.{m efﬁee Ve.21rievheA,'wo111d get back to "ét?01'K even in the

' ; I1igi1t;s'.«, =.,: Aeeordi11g to her she is not arrogani: or

* Vent has aiways <:~ca;::erated with the

p€’titie1;1e:;. The peutiemer and she had 3:31:11; account

” ~ éeiiiz eke bank at Muscat and that her jewelry and other

;Va.iue.b1ee are at Mueee.t. Aeeort:ii11g to her the petition

had been ﬂied oxliy ti} vex her and emrce her to come to
“terms with the ixnproper and unjust. behaviour and

eenduct of the p€'(;iti(}I1€1’; that she has aiways been

,9, ,

~16»

wiiimg to resiﬁe with him despite the pet1tioV:;V1Ve1_fi%);ei1’2g

guilty of causing mental crueity ta her, he

cannot be granted any relief aspe has

of his own wmrzg.

17 . in her crossmexanﬁnation Shehazs $tzi.te<i that smce%

the time of the mairriage tgiie V.i9ei;ei::iz1si1i;V3
between the pa1Tie§i3_’_”§vas.’_”A of the
child in January for Muscat in
May 199$ «in September 1995
aI1<:[ "–$Al"1e4" fjxi' 1999 with the help of her
i'),§ic£:."i;*e4:np£eted J:5.i:2., in Electronics in

eeiizpieted N113' Course with the heip of her

' When she started marking at Muscat she was

.' 35,UUO/- saiary and both the parties were

remiftixxg their salaries in their joixit aeeeunt. it was on

' , aegﬁount of Maya who joined the petitioners oﬁice in

April 2002, miswunderstanding arose between the

parﬁes and that Maya was removed from service in
August 2002. In October 2902 the respexzdent left.

Muscat ané arrived at Baxigaiore. Aeearding to 1<w.1

/fé

-13-

the petitioner: was leading an adultereus life with Maya

and once he had brought her heme also

were moving together and visited I’€S£ail_I%§;.IitS«;_’V:’ __”;’–‘e___ “a

question posed by the court Vais» to x>=ii”iet£iexf””ai”:&i:V Was;

ready to 30111 the petitiener ‘nor :ji_’0r

divorce, she had states; iijepjte or L’

by the peegaaner, sljxe waeV__1ea%1y’w.Vte jail”: She has
denied that on had. decided
that she C§}u.i§ ._::10t::’ life with the
1:>etiti£)I1f3;y .£i;ad’j.Z_;e’t2u§*§§e§iV_: Muscat to India.
Aeeerdi:1gA met the Manager of her
eoxnpalijﬁé ” J transferred from Muscat to

kfsajngaiare she and the daughter have been

‘ ‘af”her parents’ heuee at Jﬁangalore and she is

eaming a eum of Hs.20_.0U()/~–p.m. No

panehayat took place after her retu:r£1 from Maecat and

” ainee June 2302 she has been residing with her

parents. She has denied that she has treated her

haeband with erueitjz and aiae there is no desertion of

two years befere preeenting the petition. 11):-c.R1 is a
diary belonging to the peﬁtiorzer ‘£&–‘i1;iClT1 has been
4%»

-13-

produced by the respondent in which on

2.6.2002 and 15.6.2002 marked as i:}x.R1(:) .z3z;{(fg.) ‘-:~;as

been admitted to be Maya’s writing by the

But he has denied the writingvvi’ ;§’_<;}.m x

June 2002. to be that of May§if%V *?i_'£ié

confronted with the as." of"

5.7.2002, has that”‘”ﬁf: Ca1m<$t""ideﬁf1ﬁfy the
handwriting 0f mm, 1'1'¥*.–*.~' 'ai1giw"1"1:2t§.;A£ig;is3: 200:2.

13. Beiﬁﬁeji-“”;§j:¥1f$reci2:£;:ig-. -said evidence, it is
K law with regard to cruelty

being éiugi4ouﬁd. fckfd

‘ Ir $’ia(V:k’s Law Dictionary the term ‘mentai Cruelty’

.¢3′;~.?:=*.__.’_-1 divorce has been deﬁmzd as a course of

a spouse that creates such anguish. that it

” the iift-3, physical hwlth or manta}. heaith of

ether spotme.

20. The Hon’b§e Supreme Court in the case of
N.GJ.)asta:’1e (3)17 Vs. S.1)as1:a:r1e reported in (1975) 2

SS8 326 has observed that enquiry by the court in a

2
,%,¢,~

-19-

case where crueity is alieged must be as to whether the

conduct charged as cruelty is of such 3. cha.*’a{:tei’- to

cause in the mind of the pet:itimf1e1i,__ refétm11é1bieV

apprehension that it wiii be ‘

to ﬁve with the respondent.

21. in the case of V.ldhagz;it».eV$.

{1994)1 SOC 337,Vhase”bBe:1; Gb_eer§eG;”Ati3 a.t mental

cruelty in Section 13′{1-T)’ be deﬁned as

that condu§:t’1§ffsicI1:;’_ V_.t;1fj1fe’ott1er party such

1::1e1i’fal Wéuld make it not possibie
for ti:1é1t~ *-3:: y”–to”‘ the ether. in other wards,

crueV1i:y_VV§i1usf be of such a nature that the parties

.A :ea§x1*’1(§1f..:Je§§.eonably be expected to live together. Whiie

conclusien, regard must be had to the

se£:igl”V$tét4;_1s, educational level of the parties, the society

” V. x tiigey efiove in, the poesibiiity or athenvise of the parties

‘§e»\%er iiving together in case they are airead}! iiving apart

‘ and ali ether relevant facts and circumstances which it

is; neither peseible nor desirabie be set out exhaustively.

5’:

-39-

in the case of Savithri Pandey Vs. Prem C§1andra

Pandey reported in (2002) :2 SCALE ’23 the

Supreme Lieurt observed that cruelij/—

distinguished from the 01’diI1ar§:wvear f ‘ ; a

life. It cannot be decided on

of the petitioner and has adj’i1d.__ged._ ‘besis ef’ ‘

the eeurse of conduct, Wiiieh ivotlid «in» generai, be

dangemus for a spouse 1:0 ‘ﬁve -tj1e”‘ot.her.

rep0i?§e<:i_ '?G(3 it has been observed that
the appi¥.}_eCf1 eheﬁid £5 take the cunluiative effect of

ihrsjfézcets and: '{?§i1'C11I].'}StaI1C€S emerging from the evidence

. reeo;fc£ ez1ci then draw a fair inference whether the

..ii;§t:he divorce mtition has been subjected to

me1J§:a?;§AVe:t9e.eity due ta) conduct of the other.

jgjﬁ». :39" the case 0:' A.Jayacha:r:dra Vs. Arzeei Ram

'% '~~_i*ep<)é:'tec1 in (2005; 2 :5.a::<:: 22 it has been observed that

" physical cruelty there can be tangible and direct

evidence, but in the case 0:' mentai c1*L1e££y there may

IQ»;

not at the same: time be dire-,(:t evidence. In cageés §%z_11€re

thare is no direct evidence, Courts are

into the manta: process and mantel e:ﬁ<:I”‘i.if1c<iAt:£<:%;3';t's*;»

that are brought out in evidenge. ¢it,i";s 'iii tifiia ﬁgs}? 'iizat

one has tr) Consider the:.___ ev:'u&.:ncg C1'g1;1t1VVfir;3.01%1iaj

disputes.

25. in tha case Pazlkzaj Pandit
reported 311 obsawed that
as to manta} cruelty fer
the –p§ 3C1¢e aﬁd the deieteriaus Effﬁﬁil 0:’ it on the

mé:1téi., attitucilﬁ, necessary for maintainizlg a conducive

~ AA ;:%:’a,§’ri11″1on:2ai heme.

}.3§). in ‘Q13 case $5’ Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya {3.§”}€}Si”}

re3:p03:i:e<:i in (2{§£.3'"?) 4 SEC 5:31} the £~icm'bie Supreme
Court: aftar reviviﬂg the iilngﬁsh, American, Canadian

£2/ ,

and Australian asses héid that no u11§f0r:::1 standard can

(ever be Laid down for guidance with regard to ~

crucify. But however, has enunciated ceztaiia

being illustrative:-: but not exhaus*;iw3:_ of wijat '%f§;IiSt'1j::.,1te§""

mtrmai crueity w'b.ereix1 it ha}::; Lkfrexi

married ﬁfe should be réizi::éir;?§:d éLe:,__a~ few"-

isolated instances ever. a pe;*ied:"L£)i' y¢.:ars '{S.?3.§£…I1i2'§: amount
to cruelty. ' 'he iiimcéiagziuét. persistent for a
fairiy is11gt_h§,s=- ¥.,x}j1:1<~:14f€:~. ' 'ﬁifzlationship has

deteri01'atE€& because of the acts and

beha§§ou2'~ _» the wronged party fmcis it

extrex}:1e£§j¢ 4_ di;t}'ii:11ii;A t<).""–.£i\%ai-, with the other party any

£033gi;<éf,L'~n1ay to mental crueity. But Inert: trivial

» :f13;";"itV;:;ti:io:1s4;4_"'~:;_ju1an'e£$, normal wear and tear of the

. ':"c£a:ﬁ €édV".'iii'e§a%hiCh happfzns in dajwtoday ﬁfe wauki not

b«e44'a<iéq_1;éte for gem': of diverse on the gonna cf manta:

~ :c'}:*u.ﬁ}ty.

. While 2’ei§er:*i1::g is an earlier decisicn in the cage of

Navean &<;c:hii Vs, Neeiu kiehli reporized in (2006) <9: SCC
3&8 it 1135 been obseived that Public interest ciemazzds

not oniy that the married Status Shouid as far as

possible, as iong as possible and whenever p0sS;i"i3£€:, be

Hmintaixzed, but where a marriage has

beyalid the: hope of saivagez, public iI1t¢1f;§s;f. 11%:-ifs" V'

1"e<:;0g1itiI1 91′ that fact.

:38. Keeping in mirld the Tab0ve’;3rii1cipie$;_;t_he ‘eviri’e11Ce..L

on record weuld have to Aéugﬁfdmg Ed

the pﬁtitioner the V %{§g)£;’..piace ‘be iV:wee:1 the:
parties in October raiatiansirxip

was c0rdiai:_’i1i’f§;i.1é “¥J§1€’a£’%e:1′ a few months the

respéxficirant. i:%::;%i11f:je”%’-[,_harrcigant and of suspicious
<:ha1'actér._a:€2.d isséd tﬁquarrei an trivia} things wit}: the

:1}c5znbéifs of A child was born in da11ua1jv

' the paxfies maved to Muscat Wham the

.'m'sp0ndé§;t..i:*ompieted a course in cemputers and was

aisé 3. job with tilt? assistance and t3I1C()l,1}"ag<':I}1€11'f1 of

A ' _" petifianar. Accolriing is the petitioner after she

sta1*te;r:l Warking the 3:esp9::;;.de11£.'$ attitude towaretis the

petitioner became w1’$€ and that ?:§i}1C6 August 20013

5116 has been I”€SidiITtg in Bangaiore. )1
,5?’

-34-

29. According t0 the p€£iti()11C1′ the reiatignlship

between the parti€:$ was gczod only til: 1996

that it deteriorated 011 acceunt of the aibre–;§é1i(1.;*e;§§§S<}i*£'s.

However, what is $i§1iﬁcaI1t is "tn-:,:a.té the Vpué£i1;i;«::$i:<é_r_ did V'

newt take any steps with regéxrgi 3 i1.i.s–

reiat.io11si'1ip with the resp§)i3_<;i€:1i;t. ' 1"'£"zc: V

to live together ITOIZ3; 'P";<:' during the day as well as in

‘ Viicfzs i:e:’_vg1f:t.« ‘U716 conssezquc-:13: challge in the attitude Q3″

not onjiy with the ﬁ’ieI1d:;«;’ circle, bat ajsso

w*ii:3::; ﬁiﬁ hféspondent and the d.-aaugl’1ter, created a conﬁict

” V» iii reiatitmsilip between the parties. According to

;i:he i”€*:S§}0I}d€f1t, despite the mis~C:0nduCt csf the

petiticmeii. she is vs:*i_ili11g to msiée Wii;f1 him. in faci in

the crosss~exaIz1ination the petitioner has admitted that

Maya wag appomttzti as Big Assistant; in the Gﬁice. He

has also admitted ha: writing in his diary as

}_+;x.K1. 111 :’am: it is this n1is–coz1<3_ii¥:3;t”;av§V<)ur towards the respondent became

.A tetaiiy averse to a cordiai marita} ﬁfe.

2 A'§'.§1ru:é-Q gaetitioner who has man guilty of mis-

cc§i1§Tii:::t'a4I1ci under the Circumstances in Vi{*':.'W cf Section

AA 2;3.§_l}{f3) 6f the Hindu Marriage Act, Wﬁ ﬁmi that the

pé§:i"¥.:i_0r2er camlot take advantage Qf his ovm wrong by"

" filing the petiﬁan against the respandent. b'u;rt_t1er the

matexéai {:31} record and the aiiegations made an: $:,1r::,£':z,

which in our view, ck} net make out a ease that the

i
'M

.«-

respomiant. had caused crueity 1:0 the petitioner. The

foiiWi:1g ﬂiustration given in the case of Bama1% (3.tji:)si1

Vsuaya Ghost} are relevant to the p1’€:€$€I1t ‘A

on the above basis we ﬁnd tt1at,..ti1_e ”

made out a case against ti1é”: 1*e:43 pd:1dent.

consideraﬁon of compiete i;3._;§uimoiiiai .pa1*ties~ . L’

acute manta} pain, as ssgotud not
make possible for tﬁe ‘witi*1 each other
could cc.«me_, of manta:

crueity. {ii} apggaisai of the entire

rz1at;i*i§ﬁ11oI1’jTAa1’Tvj’i3}V:”i:: 4;iii6~ _.partjéV$, it beconms abundantiy
ciear that _SitLl_8:.vIf;(.}I3.”‘S*;1Cfl that the wronged party

caxggnui. Iwﬁsagjaiéiy asked to put up with such

Cqfliitiét cont33.me ta live with othetr pazty. (iii) A

Céfufse af abusive and humiiiating treatrnexat

“r:u1«s:ift:c£”‘:t(} torture, discumxncrde or rfiﬂdﬁf niiserabiti

V Ofvihﬁ spouse. (iv) Sustamed Lmjustiiiable cenciuct

behavieur of 6:116 spouse amuaiiy affecting pfxjmicai

2 V’ mantai health efsf the other spouse.. ‘1″he mzatmexit

CQfIZi13l8iI1€d of and am resuitant danger ef appmhensiim

must be very’ gave, substantia.i and sn:e:igh’ty. {V}

. I/’r-J

-37..

Sustained reprehens:ii}k-3 conduct, studied neglect,

:’u1diﬁi:rence or total departure from the nor.{I1ai’~s1§a;f1’cia1*ci

01′ ccxijugal i{iI1dI”1€SS causing iz1_jury to Ear.»

cieriving sadistic pleasure oa.13_._.a.i,$o a3;i§£€§t;113Ii ti5′ iizerztéi ‘ .

crueity’. (vi) Mere trivia}

wear and tear 91′ the IZ1aI’iZ’l$:tii~w.,{iﬁ3 \§?’hi_Ci1_1ia.p1>:§1i’1sw~if1 day:-V ‘

t.o–day lift: would 120$ ‘be ad¢:d;’ ﬁ?ii€;’é’§”.iie reiationship has c£eter}_<)1'ated

£9,519: <:;e:t<%:1":t"'\z"-»!f_1.'é«:¢}tV: bécause :31' the acts and behaviour of a

.' ,v§_21'0nged party finds it exumneiy diﬁicult to

" Joiner party any lenger, may amount to

msé.:1té.£'Vci*€1e1tyf. Hence an the issue of crueity we answﬁr

2 .. x the péﬁtioxier.

Secﬁon 13(1){i£3) of the Act states tiitat the

desertien must be far a continueus period of £10: 1683

than twa years im:nt::<:iiat€£3; pre(::edi13g the pI'6Sf3I}tat.i0I'1

jg,

ef the petition and in the exeianatjen to the said

p;'evisioI1 the word 'desertion' is dei'i11e<;i* 1.;é:;;"'–;;ne

desert:io11 of the petitioner by the Ot§1('3I'.'A4':]:Jii1vh'i"'!}.:§f' 4_

Inarriage without reasonable .-<:aese .-%3.:1;1 i»vLi'i3i()i;tt» {he f '

consent or against the wish ﬂ.iz"1{§i11de.sV

wﬂlfui neglect 01' the peutioneer..eby etizeﬂ ite'

g:ra1:e111at;icai vamaﬁea a11c}.e'{:ug:r;:a.Vie._. expreeeien have to

be construed accerdiilgiﬁf.

eence_pt._ef -the Act and it envisages the
fo1iowii1ge4_h1g1″e’ciJ}e1its _: (1) The faetum of separation

(1/2,}._§j;191e.iI1te1″1i:ieV:r§£ te: bring eohabitetien permanently to

e (ace:-imus deserendz) and that bath the above

H Veiietlid continue during the entire statutory

ﬁxerefbre, in erder to etmstitute a matrimenial

” V. AAei’i”e;1ee, desertien must be fer a centinueus perimi fer

lees than twe yeare beibre the presentation of tee

V’ petition. in the ease of Bzpin Chandra V”/s. Prabhawafi

{AIR 1956 SC 17′ 5162) the Herfble Supreme Ceurt has

expmined the concept 0:’ cieseI’tie11 under the Act and

-39.

painted. 011: that (i€:se1″ti0z1 is a matter ()fi11f€’:I’€1’1CE’: to be

drawn mlder the circumstances sf each case… ~_ ‘};’.!_;1€’:

in:?.=:re11ce may be drawn fi:’GI:1 certain facts, _13§Iiic!1V:~ _

not in a1″:et:her case be capabie 01:1eadi111g”‘t:$1:j

i;{liEI’€11C€. if in fact therrs: has bee:-,j1=a5 s–;i;:

essential question aiways is Ea’-‘E16? t$1atT’:§.{:tfc9i;lr;i be –. ”

atitmbsutable ta an ‘mus __€i€::’S€’_?’€I§di .Si1«’1:::t_§: the
factum and ».ni::x11;_t:3 “Sfiomc[_ a pveriod Q1′
ati::;’:;_: *3 two jg’€:a1_”€s.,__ 1:1 fgfié’ W 3. Meena
(AIR 1964;. a1i§;._A__}i?;}hi:1i:f.’V1{;;ni§;zri Vfs. fmirendra
Sing}: V{.A1_%<;' IE;'3'.?"':«':'j'V—- thé t~£0:1'bie Supreme Gem':

has reafir'ﬁ:3;1§*:c£ t{1g:4Vi;§_1*i;£1:(:_i:pies stated in the earlier case

._ With§;'eg%§1}"d ?ZO ﬁ'1€_Q{}I1C€})t af deser1:io;x":. under the Hindu

i 2 '3eiaﬂ'iag§§ 'AC1? V ., _
132';-T'__ 7i'i1é'i'¢ie:':;.-"' one of the essentiai ingzﬁdients of

des ¥erfi_I1:’ i-3#’Sepa1’a.tio:1 of 0116 spause from azlother and

. 1;i’I€€?If_€ be no deaertian Whiif: parties are living

i’0g€:’i:§f1er. B’1:1*¥;her cantinuijlg Evidence ef desertion for

“tide statutory period Gf at least two years can never

became compiete uxzﬁl the petition is actuaiiy

~31}-

presented. 1+’urt3.1er if the ciesertjng spouse gexmineiy
desires to retzqrn to matrimoniai heme, the other spouse

cannot. refuse reinstatement.

The question whether dveé*§ei’t1:1g’–«« spe.t§;ée_ 3.

reasonable cause for not ._ biixig

an end and me eoiresficsﬁding Vq.i_.1eetio1i°, whether

ciesertion witneut ex§eted¢.for tfie Vteeceesazﬁr
period is always a queetiez-Qt’ef:’f’act5 ‘ :i_13.._’consi{ie1*iI1g the
conduct of ‘1_’l14e’}:jts:!te53e}:5*tet5l: such case, the
eeurtwiﬂ t.e””E__he’1″e.cts of the particular case,

111 0rderVte_%Meece1’¥,ai:_1 “Wf:’at in fact was the impact on the

< tlie"'ciese1vti3.1g epouse ef anything which was

' _ by the deserted spouses. Furt:3:1er the

.agfee1ne1*§:_t}:) pay maintenance is not in itself' proof of

ceneexit to iive apart.

‘£34. The expression ‘wiiiftxi neglect’ used in the

explanation though 3:101″; deﬁned excludes acts or

emissions done by accident or inadvertence. 01} the

ether hand there must be censcieue acting in a

-31-

reprehensible manner in discharging ail

ebﬁgations which cermote a degree of

in willful neglect. ‘l’herefoI’e_. breach _of–» -« ,

marriage or failure to discha;*geV=.eveI3r zf.ie’*eof .m’a1*;i*§age

obligation ealmot be regaréegl azéa ;

neglect to become deeerﬁon__Vl§1:e:ei ivvkamomzts
to fersaléng or by the other
by a c011scieue_:di§=,reg.a3*{l.C’}%ij ebligations of
the ifeeiiewlxehole. Further a
spouse. miscenduet as Weuld
re11der._ “of marital relations 30

1;tnbearal:i§.eV%%lV:l:.e” ether spouse feels compelled £0

v le:3.if’e ;11at1%i111Qnial home and in such a case it is the

‘ fei’mer.,<ler;'el j"1*2<::t the latter, who is the deserter. it is

en the petiﬁoner to prove that desertion

witl1e1,lt;. reascmable cause subsiisteci tlzreughout the

..<i;fg:§Lt§1t.e:'y tsefore §'a:1ting relief' on the grounci cf

{iesertion the court must be satisfied that the

matrénlenial offence complained ef' is eetabliehed. The
legal burden of proof lies on the petitioner te establish
that the desertion was witheut cause and to discharge

..32..

that burden the petitioner may reiy an the fact he

asked her 1:0 join him and she refused.

that fact of mihsai she may seek _

interferencs of desertion by that §’uSL

cause for her refusal and »1V.1suaU§:–. ‘ii:-..wouijd.”_; Wisa

her to do 80.

35. As far as desezfiaﬂ we fixlti that the
respondent r;1e1′ on the part 0! {he responcient, but 011 the

3 oﬁsgr ﬁand, the reassn for her retmta to lzzangajt:-re was

act::0uI1t oi’ the conduct cf the petitiomar and the

VV ‘fesponﬁcnt ﬁnding that the petitioner has :10 longer in

much with his ﬁxssistant Maya, she is wiiiing {-3 391:; the

-33- }

petitioner. Hence we find mat the petitioner “ﬁgziied

to make 0111;. a case on the g’ound of desertiﬁnn’ A’ T

36. For the aibresaid reasons V

petitioner has faiieci to prove the :a£l¢;g§5:tii;I:S–. E)i’V<:;fu<:itjv'

and de$ertior1 against t.he.41_;*espo1;de:1t };_ir:<=:I_*}3I"<§r-¢?:_,:" w

dismiss the appeal by colﬁifiiiixig thﬁh of the
Family (3m1rI: by hbiiiiiigi vvV3§etjti0n filed by the

petitioner is dismi. sSed~. _1§£o'epsts:. '~.h I. —-

5} mm?' V' V'

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel

A Anil Kumar S/O C Anantharam vs Vanishri A on 29 May, 2009

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel