In an appeal filed by a husband to assail the judgment and decree dated 24-02-2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, whereby his divorce petition was rejected, a Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla allowed the appeal on the ground of cruelty committed by the wife by leveraging false allegations of intoxication against the husband and set aside the impugned judgment.
The parties had two children out of their marriage, which was solemnized on 23-06-2004. Both the appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) were public servants. The wife had filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, but the matter was compromised. It was an admitted fact that the parties had been living separately since 2017.
The divorce petition mentioned that there was no matrimonial relationship between the parties and that the wife behaved in a cruel manner with the husband while also leveraging false allegations against him. The wife contended that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty and that the husband had a suspicious nature. The wife also submitted that the husband wanted to dissolve the marriage so that he could solemnize a second marriage.
The Trial Court settled the issues based on the pleadings and dismissed the divorce petition. The present appeal was contested on the ground that the Trial Court erred in its interpretation of the facts. The husband stated that the wife was neither interested in continuing marital ties nor in seeking divorce, and this attitude amounted to cruelty.
The Court noted that, since the divorce petition was filed on 10-07-2018, the mandatory two-year period of desertion was not complete on the date of filing, as the relationship continued till 05-06-2017. Thus, the Court stated that the ground of desertion was not available to the husband.
Further, while deliberating upon the husband’s contention regarding the cruel behaviour of the wife, the Court noted that in the Trial Court’s opinion, the husband was brutal to the wife and not vice versa. The wife contended that the husband was addicted to intoxication, and the Trial Court found the same by relying upon the evidence produced.
The Court noted that none of the documents produced before the Court mentioned that the husband had a habit of consuming liquor. It was further stated that the wicked deeds that the husband confessed to in 2011 were not repeated in the subsequent years of his married life. Thus, the Court found that there was no evidence to support the allegation of alcoholism of the husband.
Further, the Court said that, contrary to the propositions of civil law, the Trial Court had admitted and relied on evidence beyond the scope of the pleadings. Thus, the Court said that the Trial Court had erred in holding that the husband was an alcoholic.
The Court stated that the persistent attitude of the wife to see that her husband is ridiculed and humiliated in his social circle as an alcoholic was definitely a serious matter. The Court referred to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, AIR 2007 SC 3148, where the unjustified behaviour of one spouse affecting the physical or mental health of the other spouse has been considered as a grave case of mental cruelty.
The Court noted that to avoid marital obligations, the wife made unfounded allegations of alcoholism against the husband and exposed him to social shame and contempt by compromising his social position as a public servant. The Court said that the wife’s act of baseless accusation had a decisive impact on the future relationship of the parties and that the dismissal of the divorce petition was neither legitimate nor warranted.
Thus, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment and decree were set aside.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Pradeep Kumar Naveria
For Respondent – Mr. Jagadish Prasad Kanojia
