(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Madurai in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2001 dated 27.09.2007.
2.The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent wife as petitioner has filed a petition for divorce.
3.The brief facts of the petitioner as stated in the petition filed before the trial Court are as follows:
The marriage had taken place on 13.12.1998 and from the date of marriage, the respondent shown his hostile and inimical attitude towards the petitioner and he always ill-treated her by using abusive and unparliamentary words. The respondent was working as Stenographer in the Ministry of Industries at New Delhi. The respondent suspected the petitioner's fidelity and he had demanded dowry from the petitioner. Because of the respondent's ill treatment and cruel activity, the petitioner suffered with heavy mental torture and mental agony and when she got pregnant, the respondent with a suspect mind harassed the petitioner and asked her to abort the fetus, which caused much mental agony to the petitioner and hence, she left to Madurai, when she was about 6 months pregnancy and in the month of November, Seemantham was conducted, the respondent alone participated and their parents were not presented. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 23.01.2000, a female baby viz., Mithla was born to them. Thereafter, the respondent came to Madurai for the naming ceremony and thereafter, the respondent has not come to Madurai either to see the petitioner or his child. Therefore, on 03.12.2000, the petitioner went to New Delhi along with child. Even thereafter, the respondent has not changed his attitude of ill treatment and cruelty. On 17.12.2000, the respondent attacked the petitioner with his hands and pulled up the Thali and threatened him with dire consequences by showing knife to her. Therefore, the petitioner came down to Madurai on 20.12.2000. Thereafter, the respondent sent several letters to the petitioner stating false allegations and threatened her and her parents with dire consequences. The petitioner gave a complaint to Karuppayurani Police Station and an enquiry was conducted, where also, he threatened the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petitioner for divorce.
4.The averments in the counter statement filed by the respondent are as follows:
The allegations that the respondent suspected the virginity of the petitioner is nothing but absurd and meaningless. The petitioner alone did not show any respect and regard to the elder members of the family of the respondent. The petitioner did not at all showed or offered or done her ordinary marital duties in the house of the respondent. In Delhi, the petitioner taking advantage of the loneliness, she betrayed the respondent in so many ways and in so many times. The petitioner has no independent thinking or she is not capable of understanding herself and shed has been dancing to the tune of her father and particularly to her relative by Nambi. The petitioner had committed so many mistakes and she has done so many things without the consent and knowledge of the respondent. The alleged demand of dowry by the respondent is a Himalayan lie. The petitioner had changed her residential address under one pretext or other and thereby avoided the respondent's visit successfully.
4.1.It is further stated in the counter statement that the alleged act of cruelty has been stated without specifying dates and what kind of cruelty she suffered. The respondent never suspected the virginity of the petitioner. The reason of suspicion is an after thought and the same cannot be taken under any circumstances. The respondent had a bitter experience right from his marriage date till he reached Delhi to start family life with the petitioner. It is the customary practice and convention also that the expenses for the birth of a first child should be met out only by the petitioner's family alone. However, the respondent alone sent money through Demand Draft in favour of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner has given the wrong name of the child as 'Mithula', whereas the name of the child is 'Alamelu'.
5.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, before the Family Court, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of the respondent/appellant, the respondent was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R37 were marked and Ex.C1 and C2 were also marked.
6.After considering the petition, counter statement and also oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties, the Family Court has came to the conclusion that the ground of cruelty has been proved and granted divorce as against the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the petitioner has not proved the cruelty as stated by her in the petition. Further, she has not established the factum of cruelty on the part of the appellant and she has not examined the parents of the petitioner and one Nambi, which is fatal to the case of the respondent herein. The trial Court has not considered all the aspects in a proper manner and simply relied on the letters sent by the appellant, gave a finding that the respondent has not proved the cruelty.
8.The point for consideration is whether the trial Court is correctly appreciated the evidence and granted divorce and whether the same need interference of this Court.
9.The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. Their marriage had taken place on 13.12.1998 and from the date of marriage, the petitioner herein ill-treated the respondent and suspected the petitioner's fidelity and had demanded dowry from her. Even after the naming ceremony, the petitioner has not come to Madurai either to see the petitioner or his child Therefore, on 03.12.2000, the petitioner went to New Delhi along with child. Even thereafter, the respondent has not changed his attitude of ill treatment and cruelty and hence, the petitioner came down to Madurai on 20.12.2000. Thereafter, the respondent sent several letters to the petitioner stating false allegations and threatened her and her parents with dire consequences. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petition for divorce. After considering both sides, the Family Court granted divorce to the petitioner, against which, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the husband.
10.According to the appellant, to prove the act of cruelty, the respondent has not examined any witness and she has examined only herself and hence, the ground of cruelty has not been proved by the respondent. In the matrimonial dispute, it is very difficult to get private witness for proving cruelty, which transpired only between the spouse. Therefore, the non examination of other witnesses viz., the father of the respondents and other persons as stated by the appellant is not fatal to the case of the respondent herein.
11.Further, a perusal of the averments made in the petition and also the proof affidavit filed by the respondent herein would show that she has clearly stated that what type of cruelty committed by the appellant. A further perusal of Exs.C1 and C2 and Exs.P4 to P9 would show that the appellant admitted the same that he had written the letters to his father-in- law and he has also admitted the recitals mentioned in the letters. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the above said documents have clearly proved the act of cruelty caused by the appellant to the respondent.
12.The Family Court had relied on the letters sent by the appellant to the father of the respondent. Though the father of the respondent has not been examined, since the appellant had admitted the said letters that of his own, the non examination of the father of the respondent is not fatal to the case of the respondent.
13.The only question to be decided by this Court is as to whether the recitals mentioned in the letter caused mental cruelty to the respondent. The trial Court, on a reading of Exs.P2 and P3, affidavits sent by the appellant, has come to the conclusion that the appellant has an intention that he would not unite with the respondent herein. The trial Court, after considering all the documents filed by the respondent and after elaborately discussed all the aspects, has come to the conclusion that the respondent proved the act of cruelty of the appellant herein and granted divorce. The trial Court has also cited the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh V. Jeya Ghosh reported in 20076(3) CTC 464, wherein, the relevant portion in paras 99 to 102 are extracted herein:
"99. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgements of this court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of 'Mental Cruelty' within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.
100. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing,level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.
101.Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remainstation it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. etc., What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration.
102. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'Mental Cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeedings paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustice:
(i)On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii)On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii)Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv)Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v)A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi)Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii)Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifferenote or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental amount to mental cruelty.
(viii)The conduct must be much more than jealously, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix)Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x)The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremently difficult to live with the other party and longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi)If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge, of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii)Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii)Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, dose not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for feelings and emotions of the parties, In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
14.Therefore, in the above said circumstances, We are of the view that the Family Court after considering all the oral and documentary evidence, has correctly granted divorce to the respondent herein and there is no reason to interfere with the same, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.Family Court, Madurai .