Sanjeev Sirohi
Published on: 10 January 2023 at 23:32 IST
While allowing a man’s divorce plea, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment titled Ajay Mehra vs Gauri in FAO-M-193-2018 (O&M) and which was pronounced just recently on December 1, 2022 has allowed a man’s divorce plea observing that when a spouse has an incurable mental ailment, leading to “irresponsible and violent behavior, it certainly makes the life of the victim spouse, a living hell”.
What came as a shot in the arm for the man was that the Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ritu Bahri and Hon’ble Mr Justice Deepak Gupta said that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the medical evidence on his wife’s mental health.
It must be noted here that the Additional District Judge Amritsar had earlier quite amazingly dismissed the man’s earnest plea which he made for dissolution of marriage on his alleged grounds of cruelty under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
At the very outset, this latest, laudable, learned, landmark and logical judgment authorized by Hon’ble Mr Justice Deepak Gupta for a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ritu Bahri and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Having lost his case for seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent – wife on ground of cruelty in terms of section 13 (1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as ‘the Act’) before Ld. Additional District Judge Amritsar, the husband has filed the present appeal.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages aptly in para 2 stating that, “According to the petitioner-appellant, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.11.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was a simple marriage. No dowry was given or taken except some ornaments given to the respondent by parents of the parties. From the wedlock of the parties, a female child was born on 5.11.2012, who is in the custody of the petitioner.”
While elaborating further, the Division Bench then discloses in para 3 that, “Petitioner submitted further that after about four months of the marriage, he noticed that the behavior of the respondent was not normal. He talked about the same to the mother of the respondent, who put off the matter on one or other pretext,”.
“He also let it go keeping in view their recent marriage. However, after delivery of the child, the petitioner found that the behavior of the respondent has become more furious and thereafter, the petitioner and his parents came to know that respondent has been suffering from some mental ailment,”.
“With passage of time, the behavior of the respondent became more violent and she used to claim to kill herself or other family members. On 2.3.2013, the respondent became so violent that he had to call her mother and sister, who took her to the parental home along with female child. The mother of the respondent also threatened to involve the petitioner and his family members in criminal cases. The respondent also used to threaten the petitioner and his family members to implicate them in false criminal cases by committing suicide.”
Furthermore, the Division Bench then aptly enunciates in para 4 mentioning that, “Maintaining further, the petitioner pleaded that he filed a divorce petition and as a counter- blast, the respondent and her mother also got registered a false criminal cases against him and his other relatives vide FIR no. 16 under section 406/498– A/120–B IPC in police station women, Amritsar,”.
“In order to save the relatives from harassment of police, he compromised the matter and brought the respondent back to her matrimonial home. He withdrew the divorce petition and the FIR was quashed. All the gold articles and other goods were returned to the respondent at the time of hearing the bail application of the petitioner.”
What is worse is that the Bench then lays bare in para 5 stating that, “The petitioner alleged that after bringing the respondent back to her matrimonial home, her conduct became more cruel and she started torturing the petitioner and his parents physically as well as mentally and made their lives a living hell, adding more mental torture and cruelty to him,”.
“The respondent started insulting the petitioner and his parents by slapping them in front of their relatives and whenever the petitioner tried to resist, the respondent threatened him to re-open the FIR. The respondent refused to even cook food. His mother used to cook food for the family,”.
“The respondent in her fit of anger used to go out of the house and sit on the road or garden around the house for hours together and he used to bring her back with great difficulty. It is alleged that the respondent is suffering from an incurable disease,”.
“She even did not allow the petitioner to establish physical relations and whenever he made advances towards her, she used to give threats of police, adding more mental cruelty and torture to him. The respondent even did not take care of the minor child, who is being brought up by the petitioner with the help of his old aged mother,”.
“The mental torture so given by the respondent is of such an extent that he started thinking in terms of committing suicide, but he could not do so for the sake of the child. The petitioner and his per family members are undergoing an insurmountable mental stress at the hands of the respondent.”
What’s more, the Bench then specifies in para 6 that, “The petitioner averred further that respondent left the matrimonial home without his consent one week prior to the filing of the petition. The mother of the respondent made a false complaint before the police,”.
“Even after the filing of the divorce petition, the respondent along with her mother and sister forcibly entered into the residence of his father, which constrained his father to make police report,”.
“The mother of the respondent even tried to break open the locks of the house to render the divorce petition infructuous that constrained his father to file a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent and her mother, which is still pending. The mother of the respondent also got registered a case against the petitioner and his parents vide FIR 88 dated 30.10.2015 under section 406/498 -A/120 B IPC police station, Mahila, Amritsar.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 7 that, “On the basis of aforesaid averments, the appellant-husband has sought decree of divorce on ground of cruelty.”
Most significantly, the Division Bench then minces just no words to hold in para 28 that, “A partner to the marriage when has a incurable mental ailment, leading to irresponsible and violent behavior, it certainly makes the life of the victim spouse, a living hell and makes it impossible for him to live with the partner with safety to his life and mental peace to him/her,”.
“From the evidence on record, it is made out that the petitioner had earlier filed a divorce petition, but to give a second try to his matrimonial life, he compromise the matter with the respondent despite the fact she had filed a criminal case against him and his family members. The petitioner specifically testified that after the compromise the behavior of the respondent did not change and she continued with her bad behavior,”.
“The continuance of bad behavior by the guilty spouse, which was once pardoned by the other spouse on promise and assurance that such a behavior would not be repeated, would not make out a case of condonation. The respondent has admitted in her testimonial account that after the filing of the present divorce petition, she has filed a criminal case of demand of dowry against the petitioner –husband,”.
“This again suggest an act of cruelty on the part of the respondent against the petitioner. The observation of the learned trial court that the petitioner did not examine any independent witness is fallacious because in matrimonial cases, the statement of the parties to the marriage is sufficient as they are potential witnesses,”.
“In the present case, the statement of the parties were sufficient on their respective allegations. Nonetheless, both the parties have also brought the statement of independent witnesses touching the other attending circumstances.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench then points out in para 29 that, “From the entire evidence on record, it stands proved that the relations between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be impossible for them to live together. The act and conduct of the respondent leads to an inference that there is no guarantee that in future, she would treat the petitioner with affection and respect,”.
“Further, long separation of seven years between the parties, during which they have been litigating, would show that the marriage between the parties has become a deadwood and beyond repairs on account of bitterness between the parties. The marriage has already become dead between the parties, cannot be revived by court verdict,”.
“Such long separation is bound to create an unbridgeable distance between the parties and would be a constant source of mental cruelty to the couple. There seems no purpose in compelling the party to live in matrimony. The consequence of preservation such an unworkable marriage, which has long ceased to be effective is bound to be a source of great misery for the parties.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then holds in para 30 that, “As a sequel to the above discussion and the fore-going detailed reasons, it is held that the findings rendered by trial court are not based on correct appreciation of evidence and are accordingly stands reversed. The points framed for determination stands answered in favor of the appellant–husband.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 31 that, “The divorce petition, accordingly, stands allowed and decree of divorce is passed in favor of the petitioner-appellant dissolving the marriage between the parties namely Ajay Mehra the petitioner and respondent Mrs. Gauri on ground of ‘cruelty’. The marriage stands dissolved. Decree sheet be prepared with no order as to cost.”
To summarise, the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has thus made it indubitably clear that the spouse having incurable mental ailment leading to irresponsible, violent behaviour makes life living hell,”.
“It is ostensibly next to impossible to live with such a spouse who displays such an unacceptable behaviour in daily life. So it was but natural that we thus see that the man’s divorce plea is thus very rightly allowed on pure merit as elaborated hereinabove quite succinctly. There can be just no denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate