Family Law I

DR. RAM MAHOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

FAMILY LAW I
PROJECT ON:
(FINAL DRAFT)

MEENAKSHI MEHTA V. MAJOR ATUL MEHTA

AIR 2000 HP 73

SUBMITTED BY: UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

DEVANSH RATHI MS. SAMREEN HUSSAIN
EN-ROLL NO: 053 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LAW)
SECTION ‘A’ DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA
B.A. LLB (Hons.), SEMESTER III NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SIGNATURE OF STUDENT: SIGNATURE OF PROFESSOR:

1|Page
 Family Law I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2

II. FACTS OF THE CASE .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

III. ISSUES BY TRIAL COURT ............................................................................................. 6

IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................................... 6

V. DISCUSSION BY THE SUPREME COURT…………………………………………....6

VI. FINDINGS BY THE SUPREME COURT………………………………………………..7

VII. HOLDING OF THE SUPREME COURT……………………………………………….8

VIII. JUDGEMENT…………………………………………………………………………..8

IX. ANALYSIS OF THE CASE……………………………………………………………...8

2|Page
 Family Law I

— INTRODUCTION
Cruelty, which is a ground for dissolution of marriage, may be defined as wilful and
unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or
mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Cruelty can be either
physical or mental.1 The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the
norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values,
status, and environment in which they live. What is cruel treatment is to a large extent a
question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact and no dogmatic answer can be given to
the variety of problems that arise before the Court in these kind of cases. What may be
cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another.2 It may consist of a display of
temperament, emotion or pervasion whereby one gives vent to his or her feelings, without
intending to injure the other. It need not consist of direct action against the other but may by
misconduct indirectly affecting the other spouse even though it is not aimed at that spouse.
Making false allegation of physical assault and adultery against the other partner can be a
ground of divorce under the ambit of ‘Cruelty’ which will be discussed in the following case.

— FACTS OF THE CASE

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on September 28, 1984 at Shamli (Uttar
Pradesh) in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties thereafter cohabited
as husband and wife at Delhi, Belgaum, Chandigarh and lastly at Subathu and had two
children – Karan and Nidhi. The respondent/husband filed a petition under §13 of the Act
praying for a decree for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty in the Court of
the learned District Judge, Solan on August 6, 1993. His raise as made out in the petition, is
that right from the beginning the attitude and behaviour of the appellant/wife has been
uncompromising and unaccommodating and with the passage of time, her altitude became
more aggressive and nagging and she developed the habits of raising quarrels without any
basis and constantly humiliating, insulting and harassing the respondent/husband.

Respondent’s Claims

1
Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur, (2009) 1 SCC 422.
2
Deepa Verma v. Neeraj Kumar Verma, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 3760.

3|Page
 Family Law I

The respondent in his petition has mentioned various in- stances to show that the appellant,
has been treating him in a manner which constitutes menial cruelty.

 It is averred that the fat her of the appellant fixed their marriage during "Sharad"
which the respondent and his parents wanted to avoid but in vain.
 After marriage while on honeymoon at Sikkim, the appellant informed the respondent
that she did not marry him because of love but on the asking of her father and did not
like him.
 On the death of grandmother of the respondent on October 23, 1984. the appellant
reluctantly came to Solan to mourn the death whereas none fronr the parental side
came to mourn the death nor sent any condolence letter etc. In the year 1985 the
appellant started avoiding and disliking the parents of the respondent and started
raising quarrels.
 When Karan was born on October 23, 1986, the mother of the respondent could not
be present on this occasion for want of leave. The appellant created a scene and turned
a beautiful moment into ugly one.
 In 1989 the respondent was posted to a non-family station. The appellant then
preferred to stay with her parents and stayed at Chandigarh with her parents. When
the respondent came on annual leave in November 1989, he visited her at Chandigarh
and asked her to accompany him to Solan as he wanted to stay there with his parents
during the leave period, but the appellant refused to oblige and quarrelled with him
with the result that he had to proceed to Solan alone.
 While returning to his place of posting after availing the leave, the respondent again
visited the appellant at Chandigarh and came to know that she had taken a job in
D.A.V. Public School, Chandigarh for which she never took the respondent into
confidence. He advised the appellant to stay at Solan instead of Chandigarh but she
reported by saying that he had to make a choice between the appellant, their son
Karan and his parents. The insult and humiliation met out to the respondent led to
development of psychiatric disorder and had to remain admitted in Command
Hospital at Chandigarh and he was diagnosed to be a ease of depression. The illness
of the respondent was taken by the appellant casually and visited him in the hospital
only once or twice.

4|Page
 Family Law I

In March 1993 the respondent was posted at Subathu and the appellant joined him there but
her insulting and humiliating attitude aggravated and she would insult and humiliate him
even in the presence of his superiors and juniors. Since after this incident the appellant is
residing in her parental house in Panchkula. While at Panchkula, the appellant on April 8,
1993 lodged a false complaint against the respondent to the COC, Headquarters Delhi Area
with a copy to COAS. The said complaint contained allegations of demand for dowry,
physical assault on the appellant and children and their non- maintenance by the respondent.
It was further alleged that he had extra martial affairs with rich women and one woman was
even named therein and a request to provide financial help was made. The respondent had to
submit replies to the authorities in this regard and such allegations were false. The situation
thus created by the appellant finally led the respondent Lo seek premature retirement. The
appellant who is residing at Panchkula since March 1993, is not permitting the respondent to
visit his children. It has, therefore, been claimed that the appellant has treated the respondent
with cruelty which he has not condoned.

False Complaints Lodged By The Appellant

The appellant/wife in her reply denied the allegations of cruelty as averred in the petition and
claimed that the behaviour of the respondent and his parents in fact has been very cruel and
unbecoming and a com-plaint under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961 read
with Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code is pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Solan. It is also pleaded that while posted at Subathu, the respondent developed
affinity and intimacy with a Bank Officer and is so charmed by her wealth and status that he
is bent to divorce the appellant so that he may marry said Hank Officer. Taking the job of a
teacher by the appellant has been admitted but it is claimed that for this the respondent was a
consenting party. It is also admitted that the respondent developed some psychiatric disorder
for which he remained admitted in Command Hospital, Chandigarh. It is, however, claimed
that the appellant attended on the ailing respondent day and night and that her behaviour and
conduct has always been normal.

The respondent filed rejoinder to the reply of the appellant thereby denying the
grounds of defence in the reply and reaffirming the claim as in the petition.

5|Page
 Family Law I

— ISSUES BY TRIAL COURT

1. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in favour of the petitioner, whether he is entitled to a

decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage?

— PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Earlier the petition was allowed by the learned District Judge vide judgment dated March 27,
1996 but on appeal by the appellant, that judgment was set aside by a Division Bench of this
Court as the entire evidence on record was found to have not been discussed and appreciated
therein and the case was remanded for fresh decision according to law.

— DISCUSSION BY THE SUPREME COURT

The dissolution of marriage in this case has been claimed on the ground of cruelty. The legal
concept of cruelty and the kind or degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial
offence have not been defined by any statute of the Indian Legislature relating to marriage
and divorce: nor has the expression been defined in the Matrimonial Causes Act. 1950. The
accepted legal meaning of this expression, which is rather difficult to define, had been
"conduct of such character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental),
or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger." Supreme Court critically
examined the matrimonial ground of cruelty and observed that the inquiry in any case had to
be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the
petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with
the respondent.3

However, according to the Indian penal Code 1860, ‘cruelty’ is defined as –

“(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to

3
Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534.

6|Page
 Family Law I

coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.]4

Against the aforesaid background, in a case under Section 13 of the Act. it has to be judged
independently of the above definition of "cruelty" as to whether the acts and conduct imputed
to the opposite party in a petition under Section 13 of the Act amount to cruelty or not.
Therefore, the Courts have in interpret, analyse and define what would constitute 'cruelty' in a
given case depending upon many factors such as social status, background, customs,
traditions, caste and community, upbringing, public opinion pre- vailing in the locality etc.

— FINDINGS BY THE SUPREME COURT

In this case all pleaded instances of cruelty except the one regarding allegedly false allegation
of illicit intimacy between the respondent and a Bank Officer namely, Vanita Kapur, relate to
the period prior to March 1993. Two of such instances are (i) that the father of the appellant
insisted on arranging the marriage of the parties in 'Sharadh and (ii) that the parents of the
appellant did not come to condole nor sent any condolence message on the death of the
grandmother of the respondent. None of these instances, even if proved to be correct are acts
of cruelty by the appellant.

After March 1993, the appellant made a complaint dated April 18. 1993 against the
respondent: A photo copy of such complaint is Ext. PA. The allegations against the
respondent in this complaint are : (i) that the appellant had been constantly harassed and
physically assaulted by the respondent on the ground that she had not brought sufficient
dowry, (ii) that he had failed to provide maintenance to her and their children, and (iii) that
the respondent had extra-marital affairs with rich women including one Vanita Kapur, an
employee of State Bank of India and wanted to marry her after divorcing the appellant.

The appellant while appearing as her sole witness, has not stated that on the allegations of
having brought less dowry, she was harassed and physically assaulted by the respondent.
Thus, this allegation evidently is false. It is also not her case in her statement that the
respondent failed to maintain her and their children at any point of time and she has not stated
anything in her statement to substantiate this allegation. On the contrary, the contents of para
17 of the petition averring that as is duty-bound, the respondent had spent his hard earned

4
§ 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7|Page
 Family Law I

money on the appellant and their children and provided them all comforts, he could within his
means, and had joint accounts with the appellant who was free to operate such accounts of
her own and all his F.D.Rs. were also in the joint names either with the appellant or their
children, have not been denied in the reply of the appellant and it has been admitted that the
respondent was behaving normally as regards providing of funds to her and the children.
Thus, this allegation is also false. It can thus be concluded without hesitation that the
allegations made by the appellant against the respondent in application Ext. PA are
unfounded, baseless and false and as such amount to legal cruelty.

The above finding is supported by the case of Kamaljit Bhullar v. Nimrat Preet Singh
Bhullar5 where it was said that allegations of the nature made in the application Ext. PA
levelled by one spouse against the other, if not proved to be correct, would constitute legal
cruelty.

— HOLDING OF THE SUPREME COURT

Making of the aforesaid false allegations the appellant constitute 'cruelty' which has led the
parties to a situation in which it has become impossible for them to live together without
agony, depression and distress. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent is
in any manner taking advantage of his own wrongs. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to
the relief claimed.

— JUDGEMENT
For the reasons stated here-in-above, the Honourable Court find no reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment and decree. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. No order as to
costs.

5
1991 (1) Sim LC 156.

8|Page
 Family Law I

— ANALYSIS
Taking into consideration that we live in a patriarchal society, making an assumption that
brutishness and callousness are inherent features of the ideal male Indian would be
considered as an incorrect surmise. Even women are neck and neck with the males whether it
be dominance in the career fields or in household. The decision held by the Honourable High
Court and upheld by the Apex court are worthy to be appreciated considering the view that
the appellant made several false allegation on the respondent. The same attributes were
exhibited in the cases of Kamini Gupta v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta6, Urmila Devi v. Devindra
Kumar Parcha7, Monika Hom Roy v. Smaran Roy8, Archana Sharma v. Mukesh Kumar
Sharma9 et cetera. These are some of the cases where husband was granted divorce on the
ground of cruelty accruing from wife.

In spite of the several allegations made by the appellant, the Honourable Court examined the
facts and circumstances and then arrived at a conclusion. The concept of cruelty has varied
from time to time, from place to place and from individual to individual. The cruelty alleged
may depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social
conditions, their culture and human values to which attaches importance.10 There was no
fixed criteria to define the term ‘cruelty’. It is subjective and depends from case to case and
upon their particular facts and circumstances. What may be cruelty in one case may not be
the same in another case. However, the cruelty in this case was of such a nature that the
respondent had to seek premature retirement on ground of traumatic marital life. Taking all
the factors into consideration and the acts done by the appellant which sabotaged not only his
reputation amongst his colleagues but also caused him mental suffering, the judgement
delivered by the Apex Court was just and reasonable.

As far as the case is concerned, we cannot say that there was any lacuna from the part of the
Court as they have heard both the parties and have relied on evidences. There was no signs of
partiality at any stage of the proceedings.

6
AIR 1985 Del 221.
7
1982 SCC OnLine Del 332.
8
2000 SCC OnLine Gau 117.
9
2014 SCC OnLine All 15989.
10
Pramod Kumar Das, Law Relating to Cruelty to Husband: Divorce and Maintenance to Wife, pg 72.

9|Page