Without mincing any words whatsoever and without beating about the bush, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in an extremely learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Devesh Yadav v. Smt. Meenal in FAO-M-208 of 2013 that was reserved on 30.03.2022 and then finally pronounced on 08.04.2022 has observed explicitly, eloquently and elegantly that if the wife is bent upon destroying the career and reputation of her husband by making complaints against him to his senior officers, then it would amount to mental cruelty and the same would entitle the man to divorce. It must be mentioned that the Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma observed thus, while hearing a plea that was filed by an Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel who sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Consequently, we thus see that the Court very rightly granted a decree of divorce and allowed the plea while noting specifically that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again.
To start with, this extremely commendable, cogent, composed and creditworthy judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashok Kumar Verma for a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Ms Justice Ritu Bahri sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The appellant-husband has come up in appeal before this Court seeking setting aside of judgment and decree dated 26.02.2013 passed by the District Judge, Rohtak, whereby petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the HMA’) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then while elaborating on the facts of the case envisages in para 2 that, “Brief facts of the case are that appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the HMA for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce pleading therein that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.11.1998 and the same was registered on 23.11.1998 at Rohtak. At the time of marriage, appellant-husband was posted at Srinagar and they lived there upto March, 2000. Respondent-wife insisted that delivery of the child should take place at Rohtak, therefore, appellant acceded to her request and they went to Rohtak, where they were blessed with a son, namely, Jalaj on 24.08.1999. Thereafter, appellant was transferred to Jammu and parties lived together there upto April, 2002. The appellant remained posted at Jammu upto September, 2002 and then was transferred to Lucknow. It is alleged by the appellant-husband that from the beginning of the marriage, conduct, behaviour and attitude of the respondent-wife had been cruel, unwarranted and harsh and she used to pick up quarrels over trifles without any justifiable cause. The respondent deserted the appellant in April, 2002 and since then she had not returned to matrimonial home, whereas appellant had always been giving love and affection to the respondent and his son. In the beginning of December, 1999 appellant had taken the respondent along with his son to his place of posting at Srinagar and at the request of respondent her mother was also taken there and appellant provided proper food, clothing and every good lodging facility to the respondent, her mother and the son. In mid December, 1999, respondent suffered with breast abscess and she was got treated and operated at Army Hospital, Srinagar. In December, 1999, respondent was again operated at PGIMS, Rohtak, as the said ailment had re-developed. In April, 2002, respondent went to the house of her parents at Rohtak and thereafter in spite of best efforts of the appellant, she did not return to her matrimonial home. Appellant had also written several letters from the place of his posting requesting respondent and her parents to send the respondent and his son to him but in vain. Whenever, appellant came on leave at Rohtak and tried to meet his wife and the child, respondent’s parents did not allow him to meet them. Rather, Pawan, brother of the respondent, misbehaved with the appellant whenever appellant visited the house of his in-laws. Appellant also met the respondent in April, 2006 and requested her to accompany him and apprised her that he had booked seats for journey but she flatly refused to accompany him and threatened that if he tried to take her with him, she would commit suicide. It is further alleged that respondent failed to discharge her matrimonial duties and obligations and rather she ill-treated and mal-treated the appellant, caused physical and mental cruelty upon him, did not cooperate in married life and made his life hell. The respondent even failed to give any respect and regard to the parents of the appellant. When respondent expressed her desire to do a job, appellant agreed to her request and she had worked at Army Public School, Jammu, from July, 2001 to March, 2002. As in spite of best efforts made by the appellant, respondent did not join the matrimonial home, he was compelled to institute a divorce petition bearing No.58 of 2006. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat/mediation. During the course of these proceedings, respondent agreed to withdraw her complaint made to the Air Force authorities as well as the application for maintenance filed before the Senior Air Force Officer, on withdrawal of said petition by the appellant. The matter was compromised on the basis of separate statements dated 21.12.2008 and the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn. Appellant further alleged that respondent was working as lecturer in mathematics in Matu Ram Institute of Engineering and Management at Rohtak. Even during vacations she never joined the company of the appellant. Despite having given undertaking before the Court in her statement dated 21.12.2008, she had not withdrawn her complaint and maintenance application filed before the Senior Air Force Officer and did not join the company of the appellant at the matrimonial home at the place of his posting i.e. at M.E.T. Flight Air Force Station, Sirsa (Haryana). Therefore, appellant sought decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.”
Needless to say, the Bench then observes in para 13 that, “It is undisputed fact that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 19.11.1998 and the same was registered on 23.11.1998. On 24.08.1999 a child, namely, Jalaj was born out of the wedlock. According to the appellant, in the month of April, 2002, the respondent left the company of the appellant and went to her parents' house and the efforts made by the appellant to bring her back went in vain. It is the specific case of the respondent-wife that she never deserted the appellant nor caused any cruelty to him. The Family Court, considering the averments of both the parties, dismissed the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the HMA.”
As we see, the Bench then notes in para 14 that, “In view of the above circumstances, before proceeding with the appeal on merits, taking into consideration the fact that the parties were residing separately for about 12 years, vide order dated 28.04.2014, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 19.05.2014. However, on several occasions parties did not appear before the mediator. Therefore, due to lackadaisical approach of both the parties to settle the matter and due to expiry of the stipulated period, mediator referred back the matter to this Court on 14.08.2014. Thus, the appeal was admitted on 20.02.2015.”
In hindsight, the Bench then recalls in para 15 that, “Being fed up of the behavior of the respondent-wife, earlier also appellant had instituted a petition for divorce bearing No.58 of 2006, which was referred to the Lok Adalat. The matter was compromised on 21.12.2008 and on assurance of the respondent to withdraw her complaint made to the Air Force authorities and the application for maintenance filed by her before the senior Air Force officer, appellant had withdrawn the said petition for divorce.”
To be sure, the Bench notes in para 21 that, “Respondent wife also bent upon destroying the career and reputation of the appellant-husband as she made complaints against him to his senior officers in the Air Force.”
Briefly stated, the Bench mentions in para 22 that, “At this juncture, it is important to make reference to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja, Civil Appeal No.10719 of 2013, decided on 24.04.2017, wherein, it was held that a false complaint was registered against the husband by the wife, after wife herself inflicted injuries on her person. In criminal proceedings, the husband had been acquitted and thereafter, proceedings against the wife were launched. On this account, the husband was held entitled to decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty.”
Likewise, the Bench then also points out in para 23 that, “Likewise in Joydeep Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, Civil Appeal Nos.3786-3787 of 2020, decided on 26.02.2021 (Law Finder Doc Id #1813316), where defamatory complaints had been made by wife to husband’s superior officers and the complaint so made by the wife was held to have affected the career progress of the husband, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it amounted to ‘mental cruelty’ as the husband had suffered adverse consequences, in his life and career, on account of allegations, made by wife. The Family Court, had granted divorce to the husband, on the ground of cruelty. However, the High Court had reversed the finding of the Family Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while deciding the matter, referred to another judgment passed in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511, wherein, it was observed that in order to make out a case of mental cruelty, no uniform standard can be laid down and each case will have to be decided, on its own facts. Further, in Joydeep Majumdar’s case (supra), it was observed as herein given:-“11. The materials in the present case reveal that the respondent had made several defamatory complaints to the appellant’s superiors in the Army for which, a Court of inquiry was held by the Army authorities against the appellant. Primarily for those, the appellant’s career progress got affected. The Respondent was also making complaints to other authorities, such as, the State Commission for Women and has posted defamatory materials on other platforms. The net outcome of above is that the appellant’s career and reputation had suffered.
- When the appellant has suffered adverse consequences in his life and career on account of the allegations made by the respondent, the legal consequences must follow and those cannot be prevented only because, no Court has determined that the allegations were false. The High Court however felt that without any definite finding on the credibility of the wife’s allegation, the wronged spouse would be disentitled to relief. This is not found to be the correct way to deal with the issue.
- Proceeding with the above understanding, the question which requires to be answered here is whether the conduct of the respondent would fall within the realm of mental cruelty. Here the allegations are levelled by a highly educated spouse and they do have the propensity to irreparably damage the character and reputation of the appellant. When the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would be difficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected party.””
Be it noted, the Bench then minces no words to state in para 26 that, “The conduct of the respondent-wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegations against her husband and parents-in-law indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that appellant and his parents are put in jail and the appellant is removed from his job. We have no manner of doubt that this conduct of respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband.” Quite forthrightly, the Bench then holds in para 30 that, “In the present case, the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again. Further, not to grant decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties.” In retrospect, the Bench then recalls in para 31 that, “The three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Samar Ghosh (supra) passed the decree on the ground of mental cruelty but the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage has been discussed in detail referring the 71st report of the Law Commission of India.” While referring to a relevant case law, the Bench then points out in para 32 that, “Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa (supra) has observed that though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, however, marriage which is dead for all purposes, cannot be revived by Court’s verdict, if parties are not willing since marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they have dried up, there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by court decree.” Adding more to it, the Bench then remarks in para 33 that, “Now, once the respondent-wife who is not staying with the appellant for the last about 20 years and is not ready to give mutual divorce to the appellant-husband, reference at this stage can be made to Naveen Kohli’s case (supra), which was a case of cruelty (physical and mental) where Hon’ble the Supreme Court considered the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In this case as well, the parties were living separately for the last 10 years and the wife was not ready to give divorce to the husband. Hon’ble the Supreme Court granted decree of divorce but directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.25 lacs towards permanent maintenance. In para 58, it has been observed as under:-</code></pre></li>
“58. The High Court ought to have considered the repercussions, consequences, impact and ramifications of all the criminal and other proceedings initiated by the parties against each other in proper perspective. For illustration, the High Court has mentioned that so far as the publication of the news item is concerned, the status of husband in a registered company was only that of an employee and if any news item is published, in such a situation, it could not, by any stretch of imagination be taken to have lowered the prestige of the husband. In the next para 69 of the judgment that in one of the news item what has been indicated was that in the company, Nikhil Rubber (P) Ltd., the appellant was only a Director along with Mrs. Neelu Kohli whom held 94.5% share of Rs.100/- each in the company. The news item further indicated that Naveen Kohli was acting against the spirit of the Article of the Association of Nikhil Rubber (P) Ltd., had caused immense loss of business and goodwill. He has stealthily removed produce of the company, besides diverted orders of foreign buyers to his proprietorship firm M/s Navneet Elastomers. He had opened bank account with forged signatures of Mrs. Neelu Kohli and fabricated resolution of the Board of Directors of the company. Statutory authorityCompanies Act had refused to register documents filed by Mr. Naveen Kolhi and had issued show cause notice. All business associates were cautioned to avoid dealing with him alone. Neither the company nor Mrs. Neelu Kohli shall be liable for the acts of Mr. Naveen Kohli. Despite the aforementioned finding that the news item was intended to caution business associates to avoid dealing with the appellant then to come to this finding in the next para that it will by no stretch of imagination result in mental cruelty is wholly untenable.””
Most remarkably, the Bench then while taking a pragmatic stand minces no words to state in para 34 that, “It is well settled that once the parties have separated and separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and anyone of them presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The Court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.”
Simply put, the Bench then recollects in para 35 that, “In the present case, the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are living separately since April, 2002. Firstly, efforts were made to resolve the matrimonial dispute through the process of mediation, which is one of the effective mode of alternative mechanism in resolving the personal dispute but in vain.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 36 that, “Applying the ratio of the above-mentioned judgments to the facts of the present case and keeping in view the extraordinary facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed, judgment dated 26.02.2013 passed by the District Judge, Rohtak, is set aside and decree of divorce is granted accordingly in favour of the appellant-husband. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. However, we direct the appellant-husband to make an F.D. of Rs 20 lakhs as permanent alimony in the name of the respondent-wife.”
In sum, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Ritu Bahri and Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashok Kumar Verma have taken a very balanced, bold and brilliant stand in this notable judgment. It has rightly, rationally and remarkably directed the husband to make an F.D. of Rs 20 lakhs as permanent alimony in the name of the respondent-wife so that she does not face financial distress. But it also simultaneously ensures that it allows the appeal of husband for being granted divorce by stipulating that if the wife is bent upon destroying the career and reputation of her husband by making complaints against him to his senior officers, then it would amount to mental cruelty and the same would entitle the man to divorce. Very rightly so! Sanjeev Sirohi