498A is equivalent to mental cruelity and ground of divorce U/s13ia HMA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF   2006

Ajay Ashok Khedkar

....

.....

.....

..... Appellant. 

V/s

Sou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar.....

....

.....

....Respondent. 

Mr.Hitesh Vyas, Adv. For the appellant.

Mr.Sachin S. Pande, Adv. For the respondent. 

CORAM:

A.P.DESHPANDE

AND

SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,  JJ.

Date:12th  April, 2010. 

ORAL JUDGMENT

: (Per Deshpande, J.)

This is family court appeal filed by the unsuccessful husband

whose petition for divorce has been dismissed by the Family Court.

The appellant and the respondent’s marriage was solemnized as per

Hindu rites and customs at Pune on 8.3.2001.   The marriage was

an arranged marriage and after the marriage the respondent  came

to reside with the appellant.  The appellant’s mother resides along

with   the   appellant.     The   petition   for   divorce   was   filed   on   the

ground   of   mental   cruelty   under   section   13(1)(i­a)   of   the   Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.  

2.

According  to the petitioner  on the  wedding  night itself  the

respondent alleged that she was deceived in regard to income of

the appellant.   The respondent allegedly stated that the salary of

the appellant as informed to her was much more than what he was

actually   receiving.     It   is   also   alleged   that   with   reference   to   the

number of spectacle the respondent taunted the appellant by saying

that   she   was   made   to   perform   marriage   with   a   blind   person.

Touching those issues the respondent allegedly started quarreling

with the petitioner and insulting the petitioner.  It is the case of the

appellant that since beginning the behaviour of the respondent was

arrogant   and   rude   and   immediately   after   the   marriage   the

respondent was insisting that the petitioner should stay separately

from his mother in one of the two flats owned by the appellant’s

family  situated at Raviwar Peth, Pune.  According to the appellant

he tried to convince the respondent that his mother is old and there

is no one else to look after her and hence refused to stay separately.

It is also the case of the appellant that the respondent gave threats

that   she   would   commit   suicide   if   the   appellant   fails   to   reside

separately.     The   respondent   also   denied   conjugal   rights   to   the

appellant so as to coerce him to stay separate from his mother.  On

the above referred allegations touching mental agony and torture

divorce petition was filed. 

3.

Sometime   in   December   2002   the   respondent   went   to   the

house   of   her   parents   for   delivery.     She   delivered   a   girl   child   on

26.2.03.   Despite passage of enough time the respondent did not

join   the   company   of   the   appellant.     According   to   the   appellant

because   of   the   insistence   on   the   part   of   respondent   to   stay

separately the marital life was disturbed and peace and harmony

was lost. 

On   3.5.03   the   father   of   the   respondent   brought   the

respondent to the house of the appellant but without meeting the

appellant or his mother respondent's father went away.  On 6.5.03

the respondent called her parents and brother at the house of the

appellant.  The near relations of the respondent quarreled with the

petitioner and his mother and after creating a scene threatened the

appellant that they would implicate the appellant and members of

his   family   in   false   criminal   cases.   So   threatening   the   appellant,

father   and   brother   of   the   respondent   took   her   away   along   with

them.  While leaving the appellant’s residence they said that only if

he   resides   separately   the   respondent   will   be   sent   back.     The

appellant   immediately   sent   a   notice   on   9.5.03   asking   the

respondent to join the company and cohabit with the appellant but

instead   of   joining   the   company   of   the   appellant   the   respondent

initiated criminal case under section 498A of IPC not only against

the appellant and his mother but three other near relations who

were staying separately including the uncle, aunt and husband of

the aunt.  All the persons accused of having committed the offence

under section  498A of  IPC were  arrested by  the  police and they

were detained in custody.   This is the main circumstance which is

relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that

lodging   of   false   case   which   resulted   in   arrest   and   detention   of

family members of the appellant is singularly sufficient enough to

hold  that  the  respondent  is  guilty  of   causing  mental  cruelty   and

agony   to   the   appellant   and   thus   pressed   for   grant   of   decree   of

divorce.   According to the learned counsel for the appellant arrest

and   detention   of   the   family   members   and   near   relations   of   the

appellant   in   false   case   has   caused   him   utmost   mental   torture.

During pendnecy of divorce petition the said criminal case came to

be   decided   by   a   judgment   dated   13.5.05   by   Judicial   Magistrate,

First   Class,   Pune   acquitting   the   appellant   and   all   his   family

members from the charge under section 498A of IPC.  

4.

Perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution

utterly failed to prove the case put forth by the complainant.  The

Judicial   Magistrate   has   recorded   categoric   finding   that   the

complainant’s own testimony falsifies  the prosecution case that the

complainant was treated cruely and was harassed by the accused

persons with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their

unlawful   demand   of   Rs.50,000/­.     The   Magistrate   has   totally

disbelieved the version of the complainant/wife and has acquitted

the   accused   persons.     On   a   careful   reading   of   the   judgment

rendered in the case of prosecution under section 498A of IPC one

thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had

filed a false case not only against her husband and mother­in­law

but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations.   It is obvious

that   on   account   of   arrest   and   detention   of   the   husband   and   his

family members respondent has treated the appellant with utmost

mental cruelty and the appellant has suffered agony.  It will not be

out of place to mention that the complaint filed by the wife was

calculatedly designed in as much as it was a sort of counter blast to

the divorce petition filed by the husband.  The appellant had filed

divorce petition on 16.6.03 whereas the complaint was lodged by

the respondent­wife on 11.7.03.  

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

and his family members including ladies who did not stay along

with   the   appellant   were   arrested   and   detained   causing   utmost

humiliation and embarrassment and agony to the appellant.   This

solitary   incidence   would   itself   constitute   mental   cruelty   even   if

other circumstances are not taken into account and thus the trial

court has erred in law in dismissing the divorce petition.  Para 29 of

the judgment of family court deals with this aspect of the matter by

observing :

“There   can   not   be   absolutely   two   opinions   regarding

legal   proposition   that   if   the   wife   filed   false   criminal   cases

against   the   husband,   her   conduct   does   amount   to   causing

mental   cruelty   and   torture   to   him,   therefore,   the   husband

becomes   entitled   for   a   decree   of   divorce.     The   necessary

condition for constituting such legal cruelty is that the wife

has   indulged   into   making   false   and   reckless   allegation   by

filing false complaint to the police.  A singular complaint filed

by wife under section 498A of IPC against the husband and

his family members can not indicate the tendency of wife to

indulge into making such false allegation.”

We fail to understand the logic behind the reasoning adopted by

the family court to hold that a singular complaint of this nature

under section 498A of IPC resulting in arrest and detention of the

family   members   and   relatives   thereby   causing   utmost

embarrassment,   humiliation   and   suffering   does   not   constitute

mental   cruelty.   It   is   illogical   that   more   than   one   complaint   are

necessary  to   be   filed   to  constitute  mental   cruelty.       In   our  view,

embarrassment, humiliation and suffering that is caused on account

of   arrest and detention of appellant and his family members and

relatives in a false case does constitute mental cruelty to enable the

husband   to   seek   decree   of   divorce   on   this   sole   ground.     In   our

considered   opinion,     the   approach   of   the   family   court   is   wholly

perverse and the reasoning cannot be sustained in law.  In regard to

other circumstances the family court has observed :

“At   the   most   one   can   infer   that   this   conduct   of   the

respondent may have caused some disharmony between the

couple but in no way it can be said that it was sufficient to

constitute a mental cruelty to petitioner or his mother.”

Without deliberating on all the circumstances in detail we are of

the clear view that cumulative effect of the behaviour and conduct

of   the   respondent   is   good   enough   to   draw   an   inference   that

respondent   has   caused   utmost   mental   pain   and   suffering   which

constitute mental cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant

is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.  

6.

This   brings   us   to   the   consideration   of   question   of   granting

maintenance   to   the   girl   child   who   is   aged   about   8   years.     The

family court in exercise of powers under section 24 had granted

interim   maintenance   of   Rs.700/­   p.m.   whereas   this   Court   by   an

interim order has raised it to Rs.1000/­ p.m. The appellant so also

the respondent are both gainfully employed.   They are earning in

the   range   of   Rs.5000   to   7000   per   month   each.     The   child   is   in

custody   of   the   respondent­mother.     Learned   counsel   for   the

appellant on instructions from his client who is present in the court

submitted   that   the   appellant   would   pay   a   sum   of   Rs.1.5   lacs

towards permanent alimony for the maintenance of child.  Having

found the said amount insufficient we persuaded the counsel for

the appellant  to raise the amount so that monthly interest on the

said amount works out in the range of Rs.2000 per month.   The

mother   of   the   appellant   has   come   forward   to   contribute   further

sum of Rs.1.5 lacs towards maintenance of the child.  In our view if

the appellant pays sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of permanent alimony

for   the   maintenance   of   child   the   said   amount   if   kept   in   fixed