#cruelty Archives - Prime Legal

27 Oct

High Court Of Chhattisgarh: Refusal by Wife to Stay Apart Would Not Amount to Cruelty by Wife When the Husband Expects the Wife to Stay At A Place Other Than His Company Without Sufficient Reason.

Prime Legal

Blog #cruelty, #HighCourt

Title: Smt. Kalyani Bai v. Tejnath @ Kejwaram Sahu

Decided on: 17th October 2023

F.A(MAT) No.12 of 2019

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Shri Goutam Bhaduri & Hon’ble Justice Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Introduction

Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside an order of the family court granting divorce on ground of cruelty by wife. Upon examining the facts and grounds taken by the husband, it was found that none of the grounds were satisfying to claim decree of divorce.

Facts of the case

The parties in the case got married on 08.05.2008 and a girl child was born on 19.07.2009. After marriage, as per the social custom the wife returned to her matrimonial house situated at Barduli and both lived happily together for about 6 months. Initially the wife did not like the marriage as it was performed in the rural area. Later, she joined B.Ed course at Raipur and after finishing her examination the husband had gone to pick his wife from Raipur but she stated that she would reside at her maternal house situated at Devarbija as she had conceived. She refused to go with him as there was no proper medical facilities at the village of her in-laws and she delivered a baby girl on 19.07.2009 at Devarbija. In 2010, the wife had filed a police complaint for dowry at police station Mahila Thana, Durg. The husband had called various social meetings, which were convened at Sahu Samaj, Saja in the month of December, 2013 but the wife did not turn up. The wife had imposed a condition that she would not go to Barduli and reside separately, to which the husband accepted and both started residing at Pipariya from 26.11.2010. Later, the behavior of the wife changed to threatening that she will commit suicide stating she should be kept at Pipariya and she will not go to Barduli. The wife filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Bemetara in the month of May, 2011 following, the husband also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the Court at Bemetara but was dismissed. He again filed an application for the same purpose at Family Court, Kabirdham in which, counseling was done and they started residing at Kawardha together for 4-6 months. The wife failed to compromise in negotiation and lok adalat. On 21.04.2014, wife again went to the office of the Respondent at Kawardha and threatened him to take her back to his house at Kawardha otherwise, she would kill herself. Though the husband had tried his level best to keep his wife with him peacefully, she always kept on imposing conditions and there was no physical relation between them since last 4 years. Thus, the husband sought divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The trial Court, after evaluating the facts and evidence, passed a decree in favour of the Respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty. The wife has filed an Appeal against the judgment and decree of Family Court, Bemetara.

Court Analysis and Decision

Court opined that if the wife insists to stay with the husband and if husband refuses without any specific reason or cause to keep her, it cannot be said as cruelty by the wife towards the husband for such insistence. In a wedlock mutual respect and company to each other is necessary. In its absence any forceful imposition of condition by either side may lead to a matrimonial dispute. When the husband expects the wife to stay at a place other than his company without any sufficient reason, the resistance by the wife to stay apart would not be a cruelty by wife. Examining the facts of the case and grounds taken by husband in Appeal, the bench is of the opinion that none of the grounds has been satisfied individually or collectively to entitle the husband to claim decree of divorce. Therefore, the Appeal of the wife was allowed and judgment passed by the Family Court, Bemetaran was set aside.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri

click here to view judgement

11 Sep

Breaking the Chains: Delhi High Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion

Prime Legal

Blog #cruelty, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #divorce, #divorcecase

Case Title: Poonam Wadhwa vs. Rajiv Wadhwa

Date of Decision: September 6, 2023

Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 197/2022

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Introduction

This case involves an appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, challenging a previous judgment that dismissed the appellant’s petition for divorce based on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The appellant, Poonam Wadhwa, sought a divorce from her husband, Rajiv Wadhwa, citing various acts of cruelty and desertion.

Factual Background

Poonam Wadhwa and Rajiv Wadhwa were married on April 9, 1989, according to Hindu customs. However, they had no children during their marriage. After nearly seven years of living together, they separated on November 27, 1996. Poonam alleged that she had endured physical and mental cruelty from Rajiv and his family.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issues in this case revolve around whether the appellant’s claims of cruelty and desertion meet the criteria for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Contentions

The appellant claimed that she suffered physical and mental cruelty, including physical abuse, demands for money, false allegations of illicit relationships, and threats of suicide by the respondent.
The appellant also asserted that she had been deserted by the respondent for over two years prior to filing the petition for divorce.

Observation and Analysis

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties. While the appellant’s claims of physical cruelty lacked concrete proof, the court found that there was substantial evidence of mental cruelty due to the significant financial disparity between the parties, false allegations made by the respondent, and the long separation of over 27 years. The court relied on legal precedents in the cases of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1998), Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006), Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur (2010), Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) and guidelines regarding mental cruelty in divorce cases, emphasizing that the continuation of a dead marriage could itself be a form of cruelty.

Decision of the Court

The High Court allowed the appeal and granted divorce to Poonam Wadhwa on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court concluded that the extended separation, coupled with the evidence of mental cruelty, justified the dissolution of the marriage.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

21 Jun

Non-Consummation of Marriage: Not Considered Cruelty under Section 498A IPC, Rules Karnataka High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #cruelty, #Karnataka High Court, #primelegal

Karnataka High Court

AIYAPPA M.B. & ORS. V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7067 OF 2021

Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

Decided On 16-06-2023

Facts of the case-

The petitioner in this case was married in December 2019, but her relationship quickly deteriorated. The complainant-wife took two legal actions in response to the situation. First, she initiated criminal proceedings by filing a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty towards a married woman by her husband or his relatives. Second, she filed a separate proceeding under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the annulment of their marriage on the grounds of cruelty.

The wife’s contention was that the husband, being a follower of the sisters of Brahmakumari Samaja, consistently refused to engage in a physical relationship with her. Whenever she approached him, he allegedly stated that he had no interest in a physical relationship due to his affiliation with Brahmakumari Samaja. Consequently, the wife argued that since the husband was a follower of Brahmakumari Samaja, he could have chosen not to get married, thereby avoiding the situation altogether.

These facts are crucial to the case as they form the basis for the wife’s allegations of cruelty and the subsequent legal actions she took. The wife maintains that the husband’s refusal to consummate the marriage and his stated reasons for doing so amount to cruelty, justifying both the criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and the request for the annulment of the marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Judgement

The court quashed a criminal complaint filed by a wife against her husband under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The wife had alleged cruelty on the grounds that the husband refused to have physical relations after their marriage, citing his interest in watching spiritual videos as the reason. The court, however, found that the family court had already granted a decree of divorce to the complainant based on the allegation of cruelty through non-consummation of the marriage.

The court held that if a divorce decree had already been granted on the grounds of cruelty arising from non-consummation, it would not be appropriate to continue the criminal proceedings on the same basis. Allowing the criminal proceedings to proceed would lead to harassment, abuse of the legal process, and ultimately a miscarriage of justice.

The court emphasized that cruelty, as defined in the relevant legal provisions, refers to any willful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life. Harassment, on the other hand, involves coercing the woman or her relatives to meet unlawful demands. The court observed that the complaint filed by the wife did not contain any ingredients of cruelty as defined in the law.

Regarding the chargesheet, the court found that there was no element of Section 498-A of the IPC against the accused individuals, namely the mother-in-law and father-in-law. The complaint and the summary of the chargesheet did not establish any cruelty perpetrated by the in-laws, particularly the father-in-law and mother-in-law. Additionally, it was an admitted fact that the parents had never stayed with the couple. Therefore, allowing further proceedings against the parents would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

In light of these findings, the court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal complaint. The decision highlights the importance of considering the specific elements of cruelty and harassment as defined in the law, and preventing the misuse of legal proceedings to avoid unjust harassment and a potential miscarriage of justice.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

click here to view judgement

7 Jun

Importance of Timing: Filing Section 498A Complaint After Husband’s Demand for Divorce Cannot Be Grounds for Quashing, Affirms Karnataka High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #cruelty, #divorce

Karnataka High Court

Pramod R. S v. State of Karnataka and Lakshmi M.R

Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1511 OF 2023

Decided On 02-06-2023

Facts of the case-

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, and Lakshmi M.R., who is the respondent, his wife, and complainant, got married on April 19, 2021. It is alleged that the complainant left the matrimonial house on August 14, 2022, due to certain acts of torture.

Subsequently, on October 13, 2022, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the second respondent seeking an amicable settlement and resolution of their disputes for the purpose of dissolving the marriage. However, on December 1, 2022, the wife registered a complaint against the petitioner, which resulted in the filing of Crime No. 61 of 2022.

The petitioner argues that the wife’s registration of the crime was in retaliation to the legal notice seeking a divorce, and that the alleged offenses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are not applicable. The petitioner contends that the immediate registration of the crime after the notice diminishes its significance.

On the other hand, the High Court Government Pleader argues that the investigation has just begun and there are serious allegations against the petitioner for offenses punishable under Section 498A and 307 IPC. Therefore, the Government Pleader asserts that the proceedings should be allowed to continue.

Relevant Provision

Indian Penal code, 1860	Related to
Sec. 498-A	Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

Judgement

The court firmly stated that it is not possible to declare a general principle of law that a complaint registered by a wife loses its significance once a divorce notice is sent by the husband. Accepting such a contention would have a detrimental effect on all complaints, and therefore, the court rejected this fundamentally flawed argument.

Upon examining the wife’s complaint, the court found multiple instances of alleged mental and physical torture by the husband. The complaint also included a charge of attempted murder under Section 307 of the IPC, with the wife claiming that the husband had strangled her, resulting in a spinal cord injury. Based on these allegations, the court concluded that prima facie offenses were established, necessitating further investigation.

The court emphasized that even if a husband issues a divorce notice or seeks an amicable settlement in close proximity to a complaint alleging prolonged torture, it does not diminish the significance of the complaint. The court stressed the importance of conducting a thorough investigation in such cases and cautioned against dismissing the complaint solely based on the timing of the notice. However, the court clarified that if a complaint fails to establish the essential elements of the alleged offenses, it may be treated differently.

While acknowledging that there are instances where family members are wrongly implicated in complaints under Section 498-A of the IPC, the court underscored the need to assess each case on its own merits. The court disagreed with a previous judgment by a coordinate bench that advocated for the quashing of FIRs solely on the ground that they were registered after the receipt of a divorce notice. Such an approach, according to the court, would undermine the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC and complaints under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The court highlighted that the inclusion of Section 498-A in the IPC aimed to prevent the torture of women by their husbands or relatives. Rejecting the argument that the complaint loses significance upon receiving a divorce notice, the court emphasized that accepting such a hyper-technical contention would work against the interests of women and the objectives for which the provision was enacted.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

Click here to view judgement