Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 13(1)(ia)—Dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty—Appeal—Repeated threat and filing of police complaints by appellant-wife against respondent-husband and his family members—Such threats and acts of intimidation create an environment of fear and hostility, rendering cohabitation intolerable—Appellant behaved discourteously at an official party towards the respondent’s superior and his spouse, causing significant embarrassment and placing the respondent in an awkward position—Denying the respondent and his family emotional and physical access to the child constitutes cruelty of a singular nature—Upon respondent’s refusal to accede to the appellant’s demand for separation, she publicly berated him at his workplace in the presence of colleagues and superiors, accusing him of neglect and of failing to prioritise her happiness—Such conduct, characterised by repeated public humiliation and verbal abuse, amounts to mental cruelty—Appellant consistently asserted that she did not wish to live in a joint family setup and pressured the respondent to partition the family property and live separately from his widowed mother and divorced sister—While the mere desire to live separately is not cruelty, persistent and pressurising conduct to sever the respondent’s bonds with his family certainly is—Respondent has successfully demonstrated a sustained pattern of pressure, humiliation, threats, and alienation—Taken together, these acts go well beyond the “ordinary wear and tear of married life” and constitute mental cruelty of such gravity that the Respondent cannot reasonably be expected to endure them—Impugned judgment passed by the Family Court whereby the marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband was dissolved on ground of cruelty under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, warrants no interference and merits affirmation—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 35, 36, 38, to 42, 46, 49 & 50]
Section 13(1)(ia)—Divorce on ground of cruelty—Appeal—Contention of the appellant that the Family Court failed to consider her petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and yet proceeded to grant divorce under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Act at the instance of the Respondent—Unmerited—Once, upon examination of the common evidence led in both petitions, the Family Court concluded that cruelty stood established, the grant of divorce necessarily rendered the Sec. 9 petition infructuous—In such circumstances, there was neither occasion nor necessity for the Family Court to separately adjudicate upon the Sec. 9 petition, which would in any event fail as a natural consequence of the decree of divorce—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 51 & 52]
Section 13(1)(ia)—Divorce on ground of cruelty—Appeal—Grievance of appellant that she was denied a fair opportunity to present her case—Reluctance and consistent failure on the part of the appellant to partake in the proceedings and avail the numerous opportunities presented to her, would not constitute a violation of the rule of audi alteram partem—No breach of natural justice found in the procedure adopted by the Family Court—Record demonstrates that appellant was afforded ample and repeated opportunities to present her case, all of which she chose not to utilize—Family Court was, in fact, justified in closing her evidence and proceeding to judgment, lest the litigation be consigned to endless uncertainty—To fault the Family Court in these circumstances would be to condone abuse of process and negate the very objectives of Section 21B of the HMA and the Family Courts Act—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 66 & 67]