LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, March 14, 2020

Divorce - can not be granted on subsequent events of filing of criminal cases and it's dismissal

 
Divorce - can not be granted on subsequent events of filing of criminal cases and it's dismissal 
It   is   in   that   background,   the   High   Court   had arrived at the conclusion that the criminal case filed by the   wife,   which   was   proceeded   in   C.C.   No.149/2008 alleging that the husband had demanded dowry and in the said proceedings when the allegation is found to be false for want of evidence the same would be an act of inflicting   mental   cruelty   as   contemplated   under Section13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in that light had allowed the appeal. 
  Apex court held that  However, in the present facts as already indicated, the situation is not so.  Though a criminal   complaint   had   been   lodged   by   the   wife   and husband has been acquitted in the said proceedings the basis on which the husband had approached the Trial Court is not of alleging mental cruelty in that regard but with   regard   to   her   intemperate   behaviour   regarding
which   both   the   courts   below   on   appreciation   of   the evidence had arrived at the conclusion that the same was not proved. 


                  REPORTABLE
             
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
   CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  1912­1913   OF 2020
   (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) Nos.2704­2705 of 2019)
Mangayakarasi                .…Appellant(s)
Versus
M. Yuvaraj           ….  Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
     
         Leave granted.   
2.     The   appellant   is   before   this   Court   assailing   the
judgment dated 20.07.2018 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in CMSA Nos.23 & 24 of 2016.  The
appellant is the wife of the respondent.  Since the rank of
parties was different in the various proceedings as both
the parties had initiated proceedings against each other,
for   the   sake   of   convenience   and   clarity   the   appellant
herein would be referred to as ‘wife’ and the respondent
herein would be referred to as ‘husband’ wherever the
context so admits. 
Page 1 of 18
3. The husband initiated the petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the
marriage.     The   wife   on   the   other   hand   initiated   the
petition   under   Section   9   of   the   Hindu   Marriage   Act
seeking   restitution   of   conjugal   rights.     The   respective
petitions     registered   as   H.M.O.P   No.13/2010   (old
No.532/2007)   and   H.M.O.P   No.27/2008   were   clubbed
and   the   learned   Subordinate   Judge,   Pollachi   by   the
judgment dated 26.11.2010 dismissed the petition filed
by the husband and allowed the petition filed by the wife.
The   husband   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by   the   said
judgment preferred the appeals in CMA No.90/2011 and
71/2011 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore, namely, the First Appellate Court.  The First
Appellate Court having considered the matter, dismissed
the   appeals   filed   by   the   husband.     The   husband,
therefore, filed the Second Appeal under Section 100 of
the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   before   the   High   Court   of
Judicature at Madras in CMSA Nos.23 & 24 of 2016.  The
High Court has through the impugned judgment dated
Page 2 of 18
20.07.2018 allowed the appeals, set aside the order for
restitution of conjugal rights and dissolved the marriage
between   the   parties   herein.     It   is   in   that   light   the
appellant­wife is before this Court in these appeals.
4. The undisputed position is that the marriage of the
parties was solemnised on 08.04.2005 which in fact was
after the parties had fallen in love with each other.  As
per the averments, the wife is elder to the husband by six
to seven years.  The parties also have a female child born
on 03.01.2007.  During the subsistence of the marriage
certain differences cropped up between the parties.  The
husband   alleged   that   the   wife   was   of   quarrelsome
character and used filthy language in the presence of
relatives and friends and also that she had gone to the
college where the husband was employed and had used
bad language in the presence of the students which had
caused insult to him.  The husband, therefore, claiming
that   he   belongs   to   a   respectable   family   and   cannot
tolerate such behaviour of the wife got issued a legal
notice dated 07.12.2006 which was not responded to by
Page 3 of 18
the wife.   The husband therefore filed a petition under
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act in H.M.O.P No.65/2007
seeking dissolution of marriage.  The husband contends
that the wife appeared before the Trial Court and on the
assurances put forth by her of leading a normal married
life the petition was not pressed further.   The husband
alleges that merely about five days thereafter the wife
went to the college and abused him and also left the
marital home on 12.04.2007.  In that background on the
very   allegations   which   had   been   made   in   the   first
instance, the petition seeking dissolution of marriage in
H.M.O.P No.13/2010 (old No.532/2007) was filed.
5. The   wife   who   appeared   and   filed   objection
statement disputed the allegations of the husband.  The
factual aspects with regard to the qualification of the
husband at the time of the marriage and his employment
were also disputed.   It was contended by her that after
marriage they resided together at Sathiyamangalam up to
the   year   2005   and   thereafter   at   Saravanampatti   till
December, 2006.     It was contended that the distance
Page 4 of 18
between the hometown of the parents of the husband and
the said places referred to is more than 120 kms and
travelling   the   said   distance   was   difficult.     Hence   the
allegation  of  insulting  them  is not  true.  Subsequently
when   the   relationship   between   the   husband   and   his
parents   were   cordial   and   were   living   together,   it   is
claimed that the wife had behaved well with the relatives
and the visitors.   Hence the allegation about her rude
behaviour   is   disputed.     In   respect   of   the   legal   notice
issued by the husband on 07.12.2006 it is contended
that during the pregnancy, the husband told her that his
parents are insisting on issuing the legal notice and the
husband did not mean what had been indicated therein.
Within about 25 days thereafter the wife had delivered a
female child and even in respect of the earlier petition in
H.M.O.P   No.65/2007   she   was   made   to   appear   and
submit about her readiness to live with him which she
had done unsuspectingly.  The said case was also stated
to be instigated by his parents.  In that light, the wife had
Page 5 of 18
denied the allegations and sought for dismissal of the
petition.
6. In the petition filed by the wife under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for restitution of conjugal
rights   she   had   referred   to   the   manner   in   which   the
marriage has taken place and had indicated that they are
living   separately   without   valid   reasons   and,   therefore,
sought for the relief.  The husband having appeared filed
the objection statement referring to the parties belonging
to different communities as also the age difference.  The
further averments made in the petition were denied. The
husband also referred to the complaint filed by the wife
before   the   Negamam   Police   Station   in   Crime
No.401/2007 in which the husband was arrested by the
police and was in judicial custody for seven days.  In that
light, it was contended that the marriage between the
parties had broken down to a point of no return, hence
sought for dismissal of the petition. 
7. The Trial Court framed the issues based on the
rival contentions. The husband examined himself and the
Page 6 of 18
witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and exhibited the documents
A1   to   A5,   while   the   wife   examined   herself   and   the
witnesses as RW1 to RW3 and exhibited the documents
as   R1   to   R3.     The   Trial   Court   after   referring   to   the
evidence   tendered,   has   dismissed   the   petition.     While
doing so the Trial Court had referred in detail to the
evidence that had been tendered and in that light insofar
as the allegations, the Trial Court was of the opinion that
the husband has not examined any witnesses to prove
that after 15 months of the marriage the quarrel started
between   them   and   that   he   had   to   shift   about   seven
houses due to quarrelling nature of the wife with the
neighbours.     It   was   further   observed   that   from   the
witnesses who have been examined, the evidence do not
relate   to   the   allegation   that   the   wife   had   abused   the
husband in front of the students and the co­workers.  In
that   light,   the   Trial   Court   noticed   that   the   allegation
made by the husband as PW1 and the relatives who were
examined as witnesses (PW2 and PW3) had alleged that
the wife had lived a luxurious life at her parent’s house.
Page 7 of 18
In that light, the Trial Court taking into consideration the
manner in which the marriage between the parties had
taken place and also taking note that a female child was
born from the wedlock on 03.01.2007 had formed the
opinion that the petition seeking divorce had been filed at
the instigation of the parents of the husband and there
was no real cause for granting the divorce.
8. The   First   Appellate   Court   while   considering   the
appeals   filed   by   the   husband   had   taken   note   of   the
evidence   which   had   been   referred   to   before   the   Trial
Court and in that light having reappreciated the matter
had upheld the judgment of the Trial Court.
9. In the Second Appeal filed before the High Court, it
raised   the   following   substantial   questions   of   law   for
consideration:
1. Whether the courts below are correct
and   justified   in   failure   to   dissolve   the
marriage of the appellant and respondent
on   the   ground   of   mental   cruelty   (when
particularly   the   alleged   complaint   dated
24.11.2007 for dowry harassment lodged
by   the   respondent   against   the   appellant
and her in­laws and the consequent arrest
Page 8 of 18
by   the   police   would   unquestionably
constitutes cruelty as postulated in section
13(1)(ia) of the  Hindu Marriage Act?
2.    Whether the judgments of the courts
below in dismissing the petition for divorce
overlooking   the   subsequent   event
regarding   the   lodging   of   false   criminal
complaint   by   the   respondent­wife   for
dowry   harassment   against   the   appellant
and her in­laws are sustainable in law? 
3. Whether the judgment of the courts
below   are   correct   and   justified   when
particularly   the   criminal   prosecution
initiated in C.C.No.149 of 2008 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pollachi for
dowry  harassment   is  ended  in  Honorary
acquittal?
4. Whether the judgment of the courts
below are perverse?”
10. It   is   in   that   background,   the   High   Court   had
arrived at the conclusion that the criminal case filed by
the   wife,   which   was   proceeded   in   C.C.   No.149/2008
alleging that the husband had demanded dowry and in
the said proceedings when the allegation is found to be
false for want of evidence the same would be an act of
inflicting   mental   cruelty   as   contemplated   under
Section13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in that
light had allowed the appeal.
Page 9 of 18
11. Heard Mr. S. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the
appellant­wife, Mr. B. Ragunath, learned counsel for the
respondent­husband and perused the appeals papers.
12. In the light of the contentions put forth by the
learned counsel, a perusal of the papers would disclose
that the petition for dissolution of marriage instituted by
the husband was on the allegation that the behaviour of
the wife was intemperate as she was quarrelsome with
the   neighbours,   friends   and   with   the   visitors.   It   was
alleged   that   she   had   also   gone   over   to   the   place   of
employment of the husband and demeaned him in the
presence   of   the   students   and   other   co­workers.     In
respect of the said allegations, the Trial Court having
taken note of the evidence tendered through PW1 to PW4
had arrived at the conclusion that the said evidence was
insufficient to prove the allegations which were made in
the petition.  A bare perusal of the judgment passed by
the Trial Court would indicate that the evidence available
on   record   has   been   referred   to   extensively   and   a
conclusion has been reached. The First Appellate Court
Page 10 of 18
has also referred to the said evidence, reappreciated the
same   and   has   arrived   at   its   conclusion.     In   such
circumstance,   in   a   proceeding   of   the   present   nature
where the Trial Court has referred to the evidence and
the   First   Appellate   Court   being   the   last   Court   for
reappreciation of the evidence has undertaken the said
exercise and had arrived at a concurrent decision on the
matter, the position of law is well settled that neither the
High Court in the limited scope available to it in a Second
Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is
entitled to reappreciate the evidence nor this Court in the
instant appeals is required to do so. 
13. It is in that view, we have not once again referred
to the evidence which was tendered before the Trial Court
which   had   accordingly   been   appreciated   by   the   Trial
Court.  In such situation the High Court had the limited
scope for interference based on the substantial question
of law. The substantial questions of law framed by the
High Court has been extracted and noted in the course of
this judgment.   At the outset, the very perusal of the
Page 11 of 18
questions   framed   would   disclose   that   the   questions
raised does not qualify as substantial questions of law
when the manner in which the parties had proceeded
before the Trial Court is noticed. The questions framed in
fact provides scope for re­appreciation of the evidence
and not as substantial questions of law.  As noticed, in
the instant facts the husband filed a petition at the first
instance,   seeking   dissolution   of   marriage   in   H.M.O.P
No.65/2007   and   the   same   was   predicated   on   the
allegation  about   the   wife   using   filthy   language   in   the
presence of the relatives and friends and also using such
language in the presence of the students of the husband.
It is in that light, the husband alleged cruelty and sought
for dissolution of marriage on that ground.  It is no doubt
true that the said petition which was initially filed was
not pressed though the contentions of the parties in that
regard   is   at   variance,     inasmuch   as   the   husband
contends that the petition was not pressed as the wife
had assured of appropriate behaviour henceforth, while
the wife contends that the said proceedings had been
Page 12 of 18
initiated   at   the   instigation   of   his   parents   and   had
accordingly not been pressed thereafter. 
14. Be that as it may, though the subsequent petition
was filed by the husband in H.M.O.P No.13/2010 which
was originally numbered as H.M.O.P No.532/2007, the
same   was   also   filed   on   the   same   set   of   allegations.
Further at that point in time the wife had also filed a
petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.  In
that   background,   though   subsequently   in   the
proceedings before the Trial Court a reference is made to
the criminal proceedings, as on the date when the cause
of action had arisen for the husband who initiated the
proceedings   seeking   dissolution   of   the   marriage,   the
criminal case filed against him was not the basis whereby
a ground was raised of causing mental cruelty by filing
such   criminal   complaint.     If   that   be   the   position,   a
situation   which   was   not   the   basis   for   initiating   the
petition for dissolution of marriage and when that was
also not an issue before the Trial Court so as to tender
evidence and a decision be taken, the High Court was not
Page 13 of 18
justified in raising the same as a substantial question of
law   and   arriving   at  its   conclusion  in   that  regard.    A
perusal of the judgment of the High Court indicates that
there   is   no   reference   whatsoever   with   regard   to   the
evidence based on which the dissolution of marriage had
been sought, which had been declined by the Trial Court
and   the   First   Appellate   Court   and   whether   such
consideration had raised any substantial question of law.
But the entire consideration has been by placing reliance
on   the   judgment   which   was   rendered   in   the   criminal
proceedings   and   had   granted   the   dissolution   of   the
marriage.  The tenor of the substantial questions of law
as framed in the instant case and decision taken on that
basis if approved, it would lead to a situation that in
every case if a criminal case is filed by one of the parties
to the marriage and the acquittal therein would have to
be automatically treated as a ground for granting divorce
which will be against the statutory provision.
15. It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case
the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such
Page 14 of 18
other allegation has been made and the husband and his
family members are exposed to criminal litigation and
ultimately   if   it   is   found   that   such   allegation   is
unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife
itself   forms   the   basis   for   the   husband   to   allege   that
mental cruelty has been inflicted on him,   certainly, in
such   circumstance   if   a   petition   for   dissolution   of
marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered
before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could
well   be   appreciated   for   the   purpose   of   dissolving   the
marriage on that ground.  However, in the present facts
as already indicated, the situation is not so.  Though a
criminal   complaint   had   been   lodged   by   the   wife   and
husband has been acquitted in the said proceedings the
basis on which the husband had approached the Trial
Court is not of alleging mental cruelty in that regard but
with   regard   to   her   intemperate   behaviour   regarding
which   both   the   courts   below   on   appreciation   of   the
evidence had arrived at the conclusion that the same was
not proved.  In that background, if the judgment of the
Page 15 of 18
High Court is taken into consideration, we are of the
opinion   that   the   High   Court   was   not   justified   in   its
conclusion.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent however,
contended that ever since the year 2007 the parties have
been   litigating   and   were   living   separately.     In   that
situation it is contended that the marriage is irretrievably
broken down and, therefore, the dissolution as granted
by   the   High   Court   is   to   be   sustained.     The   learned
counsel has relied on the decisions in the case of Naveen
Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558, in the case of
Sanghamitra Ghosh vs. Kajal Kumar Ghosh (2007) 2
SCC 220 and in the case of  Samar   Ghosh   vs.   Jaya
Ghosh  (2007) 4 SCC 511 to contend that in cases where
there has been a long period of continuous separation
and   the   marriage   becomes   a   fiction   it   would   be
appropriate to dissolve such marriage.  On the position of
law enunciated it would not be necessary to advert in
detail inasmuch as the decision to dissolve the marriage
Page 16 of 18
apart from the grounds available, will have to be taken on
case to case basis and there cannot be a strait jacket
formula. This Court can in any event exercise the power
under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   in
appropriate cases.  However, in the instant facts, having
given   our   thoughtful   consideration   to   that   aspect   we
notice   that   the   parties   hail   from   a   conservative
background   where   divorce   is   considered   a   taboo   and
further they have a female child born on 03.01.2007 who
is presently aged about 13 years.  In a matter where the
differences   between   the   parties   are   not   of   such
magnitude and is in the nature of the usual wear and
tear of marital life,  the future of the child and her marital
prospects   are   also   to   be   kept   in   view,   and   in   such
circumstance the dissolution of marriage merely because
they have been litigating and they have been residing
separately for quite some time would not be justified in
the present facts, more particularly when the restitution
of conjugal rights was also considered simultaneously.  
Page 17 of 18
17. In that view, having arrived at the conclusion that
the   very   nature   of   the   substantial   questions   of   law
framed   by   the   High   Court   is   not   justified   and   the
conclusion reached is also not sustainable, the judgment
of the High Court is liable to be set aside.
18. In   the   result,   the   judgment   dated   20.07.2018
passed in CMSA Nos.23 & 24 of 2016 is set aside.  The
judgment   dated   26.11.2010   passed   in   H.M.O.P
Nos.13/2010 and H.M.O.P No.27/2008 and affirmed in
CMA   No.90/2011   and   CMA   No.71/2011   are   restored.
The Appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to
costs. 
19.           Pending   applications   if   any,   shall   also   stand
disposed of.
………….…………….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
          .……………………….J.
                                               (S. ABDUL NAZEER)
………….…………….J.
                                              (A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
March 03, 2020
Page 18 of 18