- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Kalpana Srivastava v. Surendra Nath Srivastava .
Factual and Procedural Background
The second appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 28th March 1984, wherein the lower appellate court confirmed the trial court's decision allowing a petition for divorce under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties were married on 10th December 1980 and cohabited for approximately one and a half months. The respondent filed the divorce petition alleging that the appellant humiliated him by refusing to make tea for his friends, lodged criminal complaints against him and his relatives causing legal harassment, and terminated a pregnancy without his consent, thereby causing mental torture and depriving him of the prospect of fatherhood. The appellant contested the petition denying these allegations and counter-claimed that the respondent’s family demanded dowry and that the respondent subjected her to cruelty, including an attempt to push her into the ocean and physical assault. Both the trial and appellate courts accepted the respondent’s version and held that cruelty under S. 13(1)(ia) was established.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the conduct of the appellant towards the respondent amounted to cruelty within the meaning of S. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
- Whether the findings of the lower courts on the issue of cruelty were legally sustainable and free from error?
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's Arguments
- The appellant humiliated the respondent by refusing to make tea for his friends.
- The appellant lodged false criminal complaints against the respondent and his relatives, causing legal harassment and disgrace.
- The appellant terminated a pregnancy without the respondent’s consent, causing mental torture and depriving him of the joy of fatherhood.
- The respondent attempted to persuade the appellant to abandon her hostile attitude, but she remained adamant.
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant denied the allegations of cruelty and claimed she performed household duties including preparing food and refreshments.
- She alleged that the respondent’s family demanded a dowry of Rs. 30,000 and transfer of immovable property, which she refused.
- The appellant claimed the respondent took her costly clothes and ornaments.
- She alleged the respondent subjected her to cruelty, including an attempt to push her into the ocean and physical assault amounting to an attempt to murder.
- She preferred to stay with her parents as she considered her life unsafe in the respondent’s house.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dastane v. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326 : AIR 1975 SC 1534 | Definition and scope of 'cruelty' under S. 10(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act prior to amendment; test for cruelty causing reasonable apprehension of harm or injury. | The court noted that the amended law under S. 13(1)(ia) now refers to cruelty simpliciter without a specified test, and relied on the precedent to contrast the earlier requirement of reasonable apprehension with the current broader concept of cruelty including mental cruelty. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the factual matrix and applied the legal principles relating to cruelty under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It observed that the statutory amendment removed the requirement of a specific test for cruelty, expanding the scope to cruelty simpliciter, which includes mental cruelty. The court found that refusal to perform customary acts such as making tea for friends, lodging false criminal complaints causing legal harassment and disgrace, and terminating a pregnancy without consent, cumulatively constituted mental cruelty. The court rejected the appellant’s denials and counter-allegations on the basis that the findings of the lower courts were supported by a reasonable assessment of evidence, free from misreading or overlooking material facts. The court emphasized that the matrimonial alliance was irretrievably broken due to persistent mental torture, disgrace, and harassment by the appellant, justifying the grant of divorce on grounds of cruelty. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts were held to be unimpeachable and not warranting interference.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the second appeal, thereby upholding the judgments of the lower courts that granted divorce under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty.
The direct consequence of this decision is the affirmation of the dissolution of marriage between the parties on proven grounds of cruelty. The opinion does not establish any new legal precedent beyond confirming the application of the amended statutory provision relating to cruelty and endorsing the factual findings of the courts below.
1. This second appeal has been filed against by judgment and decree dt. 28th Mar. 1984 passed by the lower appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court whereby the petition for divorce under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed.
2. The parties were married on 10-12-1980 and they lived together for a month and a half. The petition was filed with the allegations that during her stay with the respondent the appellant humiliated the respondent by refusing to make tea for his friends. It was said that on the appellant's desire, the respondent got her admitted in a college for further studies. One day the appellant went on the pretext of going to college and did not come back. On 21st Jan., 1981 she lodged a report against the respondent and his relations for offences under S. 307/406/34 IPC and also under S. 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cases were registered against the respondent and his relations and warrants were issued against them. They had to obtain bail from the court. The police submitted final report in the case under S. 307/406/34 IPC. The other case also did not proceed. The appellant had started vomiting during her stay with the respondent and he got her medically examined. The doctor found that she was in a family way. Subsequently the appellant got rid of the pregnancy and deprived the respondent of a happy family. It was said that the respondent tried his best to persuade the appellant to leave her hostile and adamant attitude, but she was not prepared. The petition was contested by the appellant on a plea of denial. She claimed that she used to prepare food, tea and refreshments for the family members and guests. Her grievance was that the greedy members of respondent's family pressed her for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in cash and transfer of half of the immovable property of her father in favour of the respondent, but she refused to oblige. She also complained that the respondent had taken all her costly clothes and ornaments. She admitted that she filed Misc. Case No. 120 of 1970 against the respondent, but the latter was avoiding service. She also complained that the respondent did not give her love, affection and sympathy. It was said that the respondent tried to push the appellant in the ocean at Goa where the couple had gone for honeymoon, but she escaped. She referred to third degree methods used by the respondent and his relations. It was said that there was even attempt to commit her murder when the respondent and his relations tried to strangulate her. As she considered life unsafe at the house of the respondent she preferred to stay with her parents.
3. Both the courts below accepted the respondent's version. They held that cruelty under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Act has been proved.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the judgment of the courts below.
5. The case of Dastane v. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326 : AIR 1975 SC 1534, considered cruelty as referred to in S. 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act prior to its amendment by Marriage Laws Amendment Act, 1976. ‘Cruelty’ referred to in S. 10(1)(b) of the Act had to be of a nature as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious to the petitioner to live with the other party. The Amendment Act deleted the entire S. 10(1) of the Act and substituted it with the present sub-section, which provides that either party to the marriage may present a petition for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-sec. (1) of S. 13, Cl. (ia) was added to S. 13(1) of the Act and the ground provided now is that the other party “has after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty”. No specified test is now tagged to ‘cruelty’ and it is cruelty simpliciter.
6. Where a wife refuses to prepare tea for the friends of the husband she not only hurts his ego but causes him humiliation before his friends who may not be tiring of lavishing praises on their wives.
7. Where a wife lodges false reports of non-bailable offences against the husband and his relations, who have to rush to the court to obtain bail in order to avoid arrest, she causes husband deep anguish and brings disgrace and ignominy to the husband and his relations, besides causing harassment.
8. Where a wife gets rid of a pregnancy without the consent of the husband, she causes him mental torture and deprives him of the pleasure and pride of being a father.
9. I am unable to accept that proved facts do not amount to cruelty under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Act. ‘Cruelty’ is not confined to physical cruelty, but includes mental cruelty. The matrimonial alliance is irretrievably broken where one of the spouses persistently causes mental torture, disgrace and harassment.
10. The entire evidence on record and the totality of circumstances have to be considered for judging cruelty. Applying the test, I am satisfied that the courts below rightly held that ‘cruelty’ as referred to in S. 13(1)(ia) of the Act has been duly proved. There is no illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below. The findings are based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence on the record. It cannot be said that the findings are vitiated on account of misreading of pleadings or evidence or failure to consider any material evidence or drawing wrong inferences from proved facts. There is no good ground for disturbing concurrent findings of courts below.
11. The second appeal is dismissed summarily.
12. Appeal dismissed.
Alert