NARENDRA vs. K.MEENA

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2008 NARENDRA … APPELLANT VERSUS K. MEENA … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ANIL R. DAVE, J. JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant husband, whose decree for divorce passed by the trial Court has been th set aside by the impugned judgment dated 8 March, 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.171 of 2002 (FC). 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as under : Page 1 2 The Respondent wife filed Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

November, 2001, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C. No.603 of 1995 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act filed by the Appellant husband seeking divorce. 3. The Appellant husband had married the Respondent th wife on 26 February, 1992. Out of the wedlock, a female th child named Ranjitha was born on 13 November, 1993. The case of the Appellant was that the Respondent did not JUDGMENT live happily with the Appellant even for a month after the marriage. The reason for filing the divorce petition was that the Respondent wife had become cruel because of her highly suspicious nature and she used to level absolutely frivolous but serious allegations against him regarding his character and more particularly about his extra-marital relationship. Behaviour of the Respondent wife made life of Page 2 3 the Appellant husband miserable and it became impossible for the Appellant to stay with the Respondent for the

and to get separated from them so that the Respondent can live independently; and in that event it would become more torturous for the Appellant to stay only with the Respondent wife with her such nature and behaviour. The main ground was cruelty, as serious allegations were levelled about the moral character of the Appellant to the effect that he was having an extra-marital affair with a maid, named Kamla. Another important allegation was that the Respondent JUDGMENT would very often threaten the Appellant that she would th commit suicide. In fact, on 2 July, 1995, she picked up a quarrel with the Appellant, went to the bathroom, locked the door from inside and poured kerosene on her body and attempted to commit suicide. On getting smell of kerosene coming from the bathroom, the Appellant, his elder brother and some of the neighbours broke open the door of the Page 3 4 bathroom and prevented the Respondent wife from committing suicide. The aforestated facts were found to be

after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce th dated 17 November, 2001, the Respondent wife had filed Miscellaneous First Appeal No.171 of 2002 (FC), which has th been allowed by the High Court on 8 March, 2006, th whereby the decree of divorce dated 17 November, 2001 has been set aside. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the Appellant has filed this JUDGMENT appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent was not present when the appeal was called out for hearing. The matter was kept back but for the whole day, the learned counsel for the Respondent did not appear. Even on an st earlier occasion on 31 March, 2016, when the appeal was called out, the learned counsel appearing for the Page 4 5 Respondent wife was not present and therefore, the Court had heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.

submitted that the High Court had committed a grave error in the process of re-appreciating the evidence and by setting aside the decree of divorce granted in favour of the Appellant. He submitted that there was no reason to believe that there was no cruelty on the part of the Respondent wife. He highlighted the observations made by the Family Court and took us through the evidence, which was recorded before the Family Court. He drew our attention to the depositions made by independent JUDGMENT witnesses, neighbours of the Appellant, who had rescued the Respondent wife from committing suicide by breaking open the door of the bathroom when the Respondent was on the verge of committing suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and by lighting a match stick. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that serious allegations levelled against the character of the Appellant in relation to an Page 5 6 extra-marital affair with a maid were absolutely baseless as no maid named Kamla had ever worked in the house of the

th members and on 12 July, 1995 i.e. the date of the attempt to commit suicide, the Respondent wife deserted the Appellant husband. According to the learned counsel, the facts recorded by the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence were sufficient to show that the Appellant was entitled to a decree of divorce as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 7. We have carefully gone through the evidence adduced JUDGMENT by the parties before the trial Court and we tried to find out as to why the appellate Court had taken a different view than the one taken by the Family Court i.e. the trial Court. 8. The High Court came to the conclusion that there was no cruelty meted out to the Appellant, which would enable him to get a decree of divorce, as per the provisions of the Act. The allegations with regard to the character of the Page 6 7 Appellant and the extra-marital affair with a maid were taken very seriously by the Family Court, but the High

getting separated from the family members of the Appellant and constraining the Appellant to live separately and only with her was also not considered to be of any importance by the High Court. No importance was given to the incident with regard to an attempt to commit suicide made by the Respondent wife. On the contrary, it appears that the High Court found some justification in the request made by the Respondent to live separately from the family of the JUDGMENT Appellant husband. According to the High Court, the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly. For the aforestated reasons, the High Court reversed the findings arrived at by the learned Family Court and set aside the decree of divorce. Page 7 8 9. We do not agree with the manner in which the High Court has re-appreciated the evidence and has come to a different conclusion. 10. With regard to the allegations of cruelty levelled by the Appellant, we are in agreement with the findings of the trial Court. First of all, let us look at the incident with regard to an attempt to commit suicide by the Respondent. Upon perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, the findings arrived at by the trial Court to the effect that the Respondent wife had locked herself in the bathroom and had poured kerosene on herself so as to commit suicide, are not in dispute. Fortunately for the Appellant, because of the noise JUDGMENT and disturbance, even the neighbours of the Appellant rushed to help and the door of the bathroom was broken open and the Respondent was saved. Had she been successful in her attempt to commit suicide, then one can foresee the consequences and the plight of the Appellant because in that event the Appellant would have been put to immense difficulties because of the legal provisions. We feel Page 8 9 that there was no fault on the part of the Appellant nor was there any reason for the Respondent wife to make an

the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life. The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress. The thought itself is distressing. Such a mental cruelty could not have been taken lightly by the High Court. In our opinion, only this JUDGMENT one event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is needless to add that such threats or acts constitute cruelty. Our aforesaid view is fortified by a decision of this Court in the case of Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple @ Kajal (2011) 12 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty. Page 9 10 11. The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get separated from his family. The evidence shows that the

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, JUDGMENT 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. Page 10 11 In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary

Respondent was to the effect that the income of the Appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The said grievance of the Respondent is absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from the family - the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered JUDGMENT this to be a justifiable reason. In the opinion of the High Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the income of her husband is used for her and not for the family members of the Respondent husband. We do not see any reason to justify the said view of the High Court. As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife Page 11 12 makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some

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 torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of JUDGMENT ‘cruelty’. 12. With regard to the allegations about an extra-marital affair with maid named Kamla, the re-appreciation of the evidence by the High Court does not appear to be correct. There is sufficient evidence to the effect that there was no maid named Kamla working at the residence of the Appellant. Some averment with regard to some relative has Page 12 13 been relied upon by the High Court to come to a conclusion that there was a lady named Kamla but the High Court has

Appellant with the maid and not with someone else. Even if there was some relative named Kamla, who might have visited the Appellant, there is nothing to substantiate the allegations levelled by the Respondent with regard to an extra-marital affair. True, it is very difficult to establish such allegations but at the same time, it is equally true that to suffer an allegation pertaining to one’s character of having an extra-marital affair is quite torturous for any JUDGMENT person – be it a husband or a wife. We have carefully gone through the evidence but we could not find any reliable evidence to show that the Appellant had an extra-marital affair with someone. Except for the baseless and reckless allegations, there is not even the slightest evidence that would suggest that there was something like an affair of the Appellant with the maid named by the Respondent. We Page 13 14 consider levelling of absolutely false allegations and that too, with regard to an extra-marital life to be quite serious

13. This Court, in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, 2003 (6) SCC 334 has held as under:- “7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)( i-a ) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of JUDGMENT Page 14 15

14. Applying the said ratio to the facts of this case, we are inclined to hold that the unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the Respondent wife and the threats and attempt to commit suicide by her amounted to mental cruelty and therefore, the marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree JUDGMENT of divorce on the ground stated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 15. Taking an overall view of the entire evidence and the judgment delivered by the trial Court, we firmly believe that there was no need to take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court. The behaviour of the Respondent wife appears to be terrifying and horrible. One would find it Page 15 16 difficult to live with such a person with tranquility and peace of mind. Such torture would adversely affect the life

July, 1995 i.e. more than 20 years back. Though not on record, the learned counsel submitted that till today, the Respondent wife is not staying with the Appellant. The daughter of the Appellant and Respondent has also grown up and according to the learned counsel, she is working in an IT company. We have no reason to disbelieve the aforestated facts because with the passage of time, the daughter must have grown up and the separation of the JUDGMENT Appellant and the wife must have also become normal for her and therefore, at this juncture it would not be proper to bring them together, especially when the Appellant husband was treated so cruelly by the Respondent wife. 16. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court. The decree of th divorce dated 17 November, 2001 passed by the Principal Page 16 17 Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C. No.603 of 1995 is hereby restored.

costs. .…………………………….J. (ANIL R. DAVE) ……………………………..J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO) NEW DELHI OCTOBER 06, 2016. JUDGMENT Page 17