Without mincing any words whatsoever and without beating about the bush, the Chhattisgarh High Court has in an extremely laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Shailendra Kumar Chandra vs Smt Bharti Chandra in First Appeal (M) No. 124/2017 ruled that if a wife insists on separating her husband from his parents and threatens to implicate him in a false dowry demand case, she is committing mental cruelty. It must be mentioned here that a Division Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice NK Chandravanshi was hearing a petition filed by a husband challenging an order issued by a Family Court in Korba on February 21, 2017 that denied his divorce petition based on cruelty. The Judges on the basis of the evidence presented concluded that the couple’s marriage lasted only two months before disagreements arose and the wife also frequently left her matrimonial home to visit her parents.
To start with, this extremely commendable, cogent, concise and convincing judgment authored by Justice NK Chandravanshi for a Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of himself and Justice Goutam Bhaduri sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 21-2-2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba (CG) in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2014, whereby the application filed by the appellant-husband for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty was rejected.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “The appellant-husband pleaded that he was married to the respondent-wife on 18-6-2011. Their family life went fine for only about 3 months. Thereafter, the respondent-wife started quarreling over small things and then without his consent, she used to go to her parental house with his father. After making various efforts, she returned. She said that she did not want to live along with his parents at Korba. She also said that if he wanted to live with her, then he has to live with her parents at Sakti, otherwise, they will lodge dowry case against him. On 25-3-2012, again without his consent, she went to her parental house along with her father. Appellant-husband went her parental house along with some reputed persons of their society to bring her back, but she did not return. Since, they frequently used to threat him to implicate in dowry case, the appellant-husband submitted application to the Collector and police officials in this regard. Even the appellant-husband filed application against the respondent-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Korba, which was culminated on the compromise. Despite that, respondent-wife did not live with him. On 21-3-2013, when the appellant-husband was coming from Tuticorin (TN) along with respondent-wife by train, on 22-3-2013, in a preplanned way, she got off the train at Raipur on the pretext of treatment and went along with her father from there, by assuring him that she will return to Korba. Since mother of the appellant-husband was ill, hence on 11-4-2013 he asked his father-in-law to send respondent-wife, then he misbehaved him and also said to live at Shakti along with them, otherwise, they will send him to jail in dowry case. Even on being noticed thrice by their social forum, they refused to take the notice. Due to such conduct of respondent-wife, the appellant-husband is suffering from physical and mental cruelty. Since 8-4-2013, the respondent-wife has deserted the appellant-husband without any reason. Despite all possible efforts made by them, possibility to maintain their marital life has come to an end due to aforesaid physical and mental cruelty and desertion by respondent-wife. In view of above, a decree of divorce was prayed for.”
As it turned out, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that, “In her reply, the respondent-wife denied all the allegations levelled by appellant-husband, stating therein that neither she nor her father has threatened in any way to the appellant-husband to live with her parents, nor they have said that, otherwise they would send him behind the bar, nor she has committed any type of torture as alleged in the application filed by the appellant-husband. Rather, after about 2 months of their marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on demand of car and jewellery. Even the appellant-husband used to assault her. Due to cruelty meted out to her, she got ill, despite that, they did not provide her treatment. She does not want to break her relation with her husband, and therefore, she has not lodged any complaint against him, but the appellant-husband himself does not want to maintain marital relation, therefore, he has lodged various false and fabricated complaints before police and other authorities. It is further contended that after compromise in the case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, father of respondent-wife had gone to drop her to her matrimonial house on 23-11-2012, but the appellant assaulted her, saying that he had not made compromise to keep her with him, but he did so only to create documents for his defence in Court. Even in Tuticorin, the appellant and her parents abused her and tortured her physically and mentally. On being asked by the appellant himself, her father had come to Railway Station, Raipur and took her for treatment, as her health condition was not good. When her father called him and asked over phone to take her with him, then the appellant had said that until his demand is fulfilled, he is not ready to keep her with him. Therefore, on being compelled by the appellant-husband and due to physical and mental torture committed by him and his family members, she is living in her parental house. It has been further contended that she has neither harassed the appellant in any manner nor has deserted him on her own, rather, she still wants to settle their dispute and live with the appellant. As a consequence, the appellant-husband would not be entitled for a decree of divorce.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 6 that, “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record.”
While dwelling on the background of the case, the Bench then enunciates in para 7 that, “It is not in dispute that marital relation of the appellant and the respondent was well only for about 2-3 months. Thereafter, their relation got bitter. Appellant Shailendra Kumar Chandra (P.W. 1) has deposed in his statement that after about 3 month, the respondent started quarreling in petty issues and without their consent, again and again used to go to her parental house at Sakti along with her father. When she came, then she said that she does not like to live with all (in-laws) and if he wants to live with her, then he has to live with her parents at Sakti. Once, when she was not returning from her parental house, then he took some reputed persons namely Ashok Kumar Chandra (P.W.2), Ramesh Chandra, Ramadhar Chandra and some other persons to bring her back, despite that respondent did not come with him and in front of those persons, the respondent and her father asked that if he wants to live with respondent, then he has to leave behind his parents and come to live with her at Sakti, otherwise, they will implicate him in dowry case. His this statement has been supported by Ashok Kumar Chandra (P.W.2) in his deposition.”
As we see, the Bench then notes in para 8 that, “Smt. Bharti Chandra (D.W. 1) earlier denied in her deposition in para 17 that on 8-4-2012, the applicant had come to Sakti with his father, Ashok Chandra and Ramesh Chandra to take her, but she has admitted that they had come for meeting only. Her father Chhavilal Chandra (D.W.2) has also admitted in his deposition in para 23 that on 8-4-2012, the appellant had come along with Ashok Chandra, Ramadhar Chandra, Ramesh Chandra and Babulal Chandra, to take her daughter and on that day, there was a talk between them about taking her daughter. He has also admitted in para 24 that, his daughter had not gone with them to her matrimonial home.”
To be sure, the Bench then mentions in para 9 that, “Ashok Kumar Chandra (P.W. 2) has also supported the statement of appellant Shailendra Kumar Chandra (P.W. 1) that on 8-4-2012 when they had gone to Sakti to settle the dispute of the appellant and the respondent, and to bring her back, then the respondent and her parents had said in front of them that she will not go with him, instead thereof, the appellant should leave his parents and live with her at Sakti with her parents, otherwise, they will lodge dowry case in police station against him. This fact has not been rebutted in cross-examination.”
Furthermore, the Bench then specifies in para 10 that, “Appellant Shailendra Chandra (P.W. 1) has further deposed that since respondent and her father have threatened him to implicate in dowry case, therefore, on 24-4-2012, he had made an application (Ex. P-1) before the District Magistrate, Korba and police officials in this regard, but, police did not take any action and gave intimation (Ex. P-2) under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. His statement is well supported by Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2.”
Be it noted, the Bench then points out in para 11 that, “Both the parties have deposed that the appellant had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent in Family Court, Korba, which was culminated on compromise between them. This fact is also proved from the copy of order-sheet dated 19-11-2012 Ex. P-3, wherein it has been mentioned that they have agreed to live together. It is also apparent from the statement of both the parties that in compliance of aforesaid order, on 23-11-2012, father of respondent had gone to drop her to her matrimonial home at Korba, but on that date, the respondent did not stay in her matrimonial home and came back with his father. Evidence of the appellant-husband Shailendra Kumar Chandra (P.W. 1), wife Smt. Bharti Chandra (D.W. 1), and her father Chhavilal Chandra (D.W. 2) shows that the dispute had taken place between them alleging each other responsible for the dispute, which ultimately concluded in police station after seeking apology by the appellant. Ex. P-4 is a complaint made by the appellant to the SHO, Balco Thana against respondent-wife and her father. The appellant-husband has stated in para 28 of his deposition that he had sought apology because he was threatened that if he does not do so, then they will send him to jail. The respondent- wife Smt. Bharti Chandra has deposed that on that day, she had lodged report but she has not filed any document in this regard.”
Most significantly, the Bench then minces absolutely no words to hold in para 18 that, “From the scrutiny of the evidence, it is apparent that marital life of the appellant and respondent went good only for 2 – 3 months, thereafter, the respondent, without consent of the appellant and his family members, many times went along with her father to her parental house at Sakti. It is also manifest from the evidence that the respondent and her father were pressurizing the appellant to live separately from his parents and also to live with his wife and in-laws at Sakti, otherwise, they will implicate him in a dowry case and send him to jail. Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant also makes it clear that he had tried many times to settle their dispute by involving reputed persons of their society and also by giving application to their social forum, but, the respondent and her parents never honoured such attempts, rather they refused to take notices issued to her. Although, the respondent-wife and her father have deposed that the respondent was subjected to cruelty due to demand of dowry and she was also assaulted by the appellant-husband many times, but they have never lodged any report in this regard. The respondent has pleaded and stated in her deposition that she wanted amicable settlement with the appellant and to live peaceful life with him, but she has admitted in para 19 of her cross-examination that she has never made any application to their social forum to protect her marital life. It seems that the respondent-wife belongs to higher strata in their society in respect of financial status comparatively then the appellant, hence, she wants to live with the appellant but not along with her in-laws. And, therefore, she always creates mental pressure in this regard on the appellant and has threatened also to fastened him in dowry case.”
While substantiating to what is stated hereinabove, the Bench then lays bare in para 19 that, “It is obvious from the evidence available on record that the father of appellant is an old aged retired employee from the post of Asstt. Foreman from Balco, he has one younger brother also. In such a lower middle class family, it is the responsibility of the eldest son (as the appellant is, in the instant case) to take care of his elderly parents, as the appellant has deposed also in his statement. In such a situation, if wife persistently creates constraints upon husband to get separated from his family and to live with her at her parental house and also threatened him that, otherwise she will implicate him in dowry case, it, itself amounts to mental cruelty on the appellant. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention on the copy of order dated 17-10-2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 42-A/2012 (Shailendra Kumar Chandra -v- Smt. Bharti Chandra), which is said to be the case of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein it has been mentioned that as per settlement memo (Sulah Prativedan), the respondent-wife had said that if the applicant-husband lives in separate house, then only, she is ready to live with him. This fact also supports the evidence adduced by the appellant.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench then holds in para 20 that, “Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vishwanath Agrawal versus Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [(2012) 7 SCC 288] has held that “The expression ‘cruelty’ has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperament and emotions that conditioned by their social status. The facts and circumstances are to be assessed emerging from the evidence on record and thereafter, a fair inference has to be drawn whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to the conduct of others.”
Most remarkably, the Bench then observes in para 21 that, “In the case of Narendra (supra), the respondent-wife wanted the appellant-husband to get separated from his family. The evidence of that case shows that the family was virtually maintained from the income of the appellant-husband. In that circumstances, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that :-“….. It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her. ……… As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of the respondent wife to constrain the appellant to be separated from the family would be tortuous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of “cruelty”.”
Notably, the Bench then holds in para 23 that, “We have no hesitation to hold that the Family Court was highly unjustified in making above observation. The Family Court has taken the role of a councilor rather than an adjudicator while doing so. It is after much efforts and counseling that a case comes up before the court for adjudication. Then the role of the court is to adjudicate the issue involved in the case based on the evidence after duly appreciating it. The Family Court is not supposed to advice the remedies to the parties or dispose of the case on the probabilities of leading happy marital life in future.”
Quite forthrightly, the Bench then observes in para 24 that, “Evidence as discussed above is satisfactory for us to take a view that the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty sufficient enough to grant a decree for dissolution of marriage in his favour. The Family Court undoubtedly has gone wrong in declining the relief to the appellant. The judgment of the Family Court under challenge deserves to be reversed.”
Of course, the Bench then directs in para 25 that, “In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment under challenge is set aside and a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act be drawn in favour of appellant-husband.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 26 that, “No order as to costs.”
In conclusion, it is a very well-articulated, well-reasoned and well-analysed judgment. There can be no denying that the Chhattisgarh High Court Division Bench has taken the most right stand in granting divorce to the parties. The Court has also most forthrightly taken the extremely commendable stand that wife forcing husband to live separately from his parents is mental cruelty. No denying or disputing it! Sanjeev Sirohi
