Sanjay Kumar Vs Bhateri

Citation: Sanjay Kumar vs Bhateri (1967) GLR 888

Date of Judgement : April 03, 2013

Equivalent citations: AIR 1968 Guj 150, (1967) GLR 888

Case No.: FAO No. M- 187 of 2012

Case type: Civil Appeal

Appellant: Sanjay Kumar

Respondent: Bhateri

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Rajive Bhater and Hon’ble Justice Rekha Mittal

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Statue Referred:

• Hindu Marriage Act 1955
• Section 19 and Section 13

Cases Referred: Sanjay Chopra 2000(1) RCR (Civil) 126

Facts:

1. The present Appeal lays venture to the Judgment and decree dated 11.2.2012 surpassed via way of means of the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, wherein the petition filed by Respondent-wife, Bhateri for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the wedding events be dissolved via a decree of Divorce.
2. The parties entered into wedlock on 1.5.2001.
3. She was maltreated by her husband and he by no means shared mattress with her.
4. She returned to her parental residence and narrated her story.
5. She returned to her matrimonial residence after persuasion that the matter might additionally improve.
6. While she was residing in her matrimonial residence, the Appellant by no means dealt with her as a wife.
7. The Appellant (husband) had later no longer been coming to the residence for lots nights and if he returned to the residence at night time, he was drunk and, in the circumstance, abused her.
8. All efforts made via way of means of the Respondent (wife) to make him understand, proved futile as he proclaimed that he had many ladies in lifestyles and in case the Respondent wanted, she might be despatched to his buddies for sexual relationship. The Respondent, on enquiry learnt that the Appellant is an unfastened person and indulges in horrific behaviour of consuming alcohol, ingesting intoxicants and roams round here and there.
9. She was often beaten via way of means of the Appellant after drinking alcohol. She stayed withinside the matrimonial residence for more than 4 years, however, the Appellant no longer mend his approaches or cohabit with the respondent.
10. She was removed out of the matrimonial house in June 2005. She is now residing at her parental home.
11. The Respondent left the matrimonial domestic with none legitimate purpose and took away jewellery and different articles of her stridhan.
12. She refused to return back to the matrimonial domestic in spite of his exceptional efforts.
13. He filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights which turned into his favour with none contest via way of means of the respondent-spouse however, she didn’t return.

Issue involved:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get her marriage dissolved by way of a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) A of Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds as mentioned in the petition?
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable?
3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to file and maintain the present petition?

Contention of Appellant:

The counsel of the Appellant contended that:

1. The Respondent-wife has raised indistinct and well-known allegations which now no longer represent cruelty of the sort and severity as to turn out to be foundation for divorce.
2. In addition, it was also argued that the Appellant desired to stay with the respondent, however, she left the matrimonial domestic as she couldn’t regulate there properly knowledgeable and observed it tough to live in a village.
3. It was also argued that the Appellant filed a petition for Restitution of conjugal rights which allowed to approach the Court, however even thereafter the respondent did no longer resume conjugal rights.
4. The Respondent herself is a responsible partner for depriving the Appellant of his conjugal rights, therefore, the Respondent can’t be allowed to take gain of her very own wrong.
5. The respondent did no longer resume cohabitation after the decree of conjugal rights, she isn’t always entitled to get any renovation all through her life far from the matrimonial domestic.
6. The order handed with the aid of approaching the trial Court granting renovation allowance and putting off defence for failure to pay renovation, are unlawful and susceptible to be set apart and the problem desires adjudication afresh after offering a possibility to the appellant.
7. Because the Appellant-husband received a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and the respondent-spouse did now no longer resume cohabitation after the decree, she become now no longer entitled to get any renovation allowance.

Contention of Respondent:

The Counsel of the Respondent contended that:

1. Counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has now no longer challenged the model of the respondent-wife, reiterated in her affidavit filed with the help of examination-in-chief, which quantities to an admission with the aid of using the appellant.
2. In addition, it was argued that the Appellant husband is responsible of inflicting intellectual cruelty to the Respondent-wife who, did not consummate the wedding.
3. It was also argued that the discovery of trial Court, on an accurate and distinct appreciation of the pleadings and proof adduced has rightly held in favour of the respondent thus, the judgment and decree surpassed with the aid of using the trial Court is susceptible to be affirmed.
4. The Appellant-husband did no longer develop/hold bodily courting and the wedding was no longer consummated,
5. She was maltreated and received beatings as when the husband comes to the residence at night time drunk.

Judgement:

The Hon’ble high court found no merit on the Appeal, and the appeal was subsequently dismissed.

Ratio decidendi:

1. A normal and a healthy sexual relationship is one of the basic ingredients of a happy and harmonious marriage.
2. Wilful or intentional denial of sexual relation by any of the spouse, in the court opinion, amounts to mental cruelty, particularly when the parties are young and newly married.
3. As the Appellant-husband did not allow the Respondent-wife to enjoy her conjugal rights and satisfy her biological need, the respondent-wife has suffered mental trauma which constitutes to mental cruelty and can form the basis for divorce.

Obiter Dicta:

The existence of cruelty depends not on the magnitude of acts or conduct but on consequence they produce on the other party.

Conclusion:

We can conclude by saying that, there is no evidence on the record that the Appellant ever told his wife of the ex parte order, much less asked her to continue cohabitation with him. Apart from that, the Appellant-husband did not object to the order, which granted the Respondent’s claim for maintenance pendente lite.

Because the husband did not object to the maintenance order granted to his wife, he cannot claim that he was not responsible to pay maintenance or that his defence was improperly dismissed.

Drafted by: Bharti verma, Chanderprabhu jain College of higher studies and school of law

Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider

Published On: February 11, 2022 at 23:30 IST