Opining that the marital relationship is fundamentally built on trust, the Jharkhand High Court (Ranchi Bench) has held that the conduct of the appellant-wife by concealing the material fact about her age and her conviction of life in a murder case, before contracting marriage, has caused mental agony to the respondent-husband to such an extent that it is almost impossible for them to live together where the thread of trust has already been broken.
The Court reasoned that since trust is the foundation of marriage, its breaking is “non-repairable”, and therefore, the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and its conclusion that the wife’s actions constituted cruelty was not perverse.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed that the wife had admitted to her conviction for life in a murder case and having been in jail. Thus, the wife’s concealment of material facts about her age and her life conviction before the marriage amounted to cruelty.
The Bench also analysed the wife’s argument that the Family Court’s judgment was perverse, and referred to the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Arulvelu vs. State [(2009) 10 SCC 206], defining a “perverse” finding as one that is not supported by evidence, is against the law, or “outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality”.
Briefly, the appeal was filed by the wife against the judgment of the Family Court, which granted a decree of divorce to the husband (respondent), under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband, who was the petitioner in the original suit, had alleged that the wife had suppressed material facts, stating her age was 27 when it was approximately 40. He claimed the wife concealed that she had been convicted for life for the murder of her lover and was out on bail. The husband also stated that there was no conjugal relationship between them and that a prior maintenance case, though compromised, did not resolve their disputes.
The wife subsequently filed a criminal case against him under Section 498A of the IPC, and denied the husband’s allegations and stated that she had disclosed all facts regarding the criminal case against her before the marriage. She contended that the husband had concealed the fact that he had been married twice before and was now seeking a divorce to marry a fourth time.
Appearances:
Advocate Chandana Kumari, for the Appellant
None, for the Respondent
