D. NARSIMHA, INARSIMLU V. SMT D ANITA VAISHNAVI CMA NO. 68 OF 2022

Viswa ganesh K & Rani Sangamithra J

School of excellence in law, Tamilnadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, Chennai.

The Hon’ble High Court of Telangana

Judges: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini

INTRODUCTION

The case of C.M.A. No. 68 of 2022 was decided by Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Hon’ble Justice M.G. Priyadarsini in the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. This case pertains to an appeal filed by the husband who is the appellant against the dismissal of his divorce petition against his wife who is the respondent in the trial court. An appeal was filed by the appellant against the order dated 02.11.2021, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar in Hindu Marriage Original Petition No. 20 of 2018. The appellant's petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, was initially dismissed by the Trial Court. The present appeal addresses the issues of whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and whether the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has irretrievably broken down. The central issue revolves around the interpretation of cruelty and desertion as grounds for divorce, particularly multiple criminal cases filed by the wife against the husband. The judgment sheds light on the evolving definition of cruelty in modern marriages and the significance of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as a basis for granting divorce. The interpretation of cruelty in marital relationships, considering societal changes and the necessity for courts to adapt to contemporary social norms and dynamics in matrimonial matters are also involved in this case.

FACTS

The married couple feels struggling to continue their relationship in a martial bond. After the short duration of marriage, the difference of opinion arises among them. The problem become serious after the child came into existence. So, wife left the matrimonial home in 2011 and filed a five criminal cases against her husband upon the allegations of cruelty, dowry demand and harassment under the Section 498A of IPC.

In May 2015, She changed her thought and came to live with her husband in her matrimonial home. Within the few days of co-habitation, she filed additional criminal cases. In Some Cases, the husband was convicted. As a reflection of acquittal, the husband filed a divorce petition in the trial court. The Trial court investigated and dismissed the petition on stating the reasons that the husband failed to prove his sufferings. i.e. mental and physical cruelty. The husband moves to the   high court, filed an appeal petition.[i] 

The husband claiming that he suffered mental and physical cruelty due to the filing of false allegations of criminal cases and the desertion made by his wife. The Telangana High Court made a review over the facts and arguments, decision of the trial court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the frequent filing of criminal cases amount to mental cruelty?

2. Is the husband had the financial liability over his wife?

3. Whether the divorce is granted only along with the maintenance?

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 provides the procedure and grounds for a divorce petition. It provides that marriage, whether it took place before or after this Act began, can be dissolved by a court through a decree of divorce based on a petition filed by either the husband or wife. This section provides three grounds for filing a divorce petition. Section 13(1) provides that if either party is in an extramarital affair or engaged in voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse after the marriage it is a ground for divorce. Section 13(1-a) provides subjecting either party to “cruelty” after marriage as a ground for marriage. Herein the term cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty. Cruelty includes verbal abuse, humiliation, threats, blackmail, physical injuries mental harassment, etc.  The Interpretation of the term cruelty is not exhaustive. Cruelty to a person is determined based on the implications it creates for a person. Cruelty changes its form from time to time in accordance with the growing society. What is not cruelty a decade before is cruelty now. Imposing unfair restrictions on the spouse amounts to cruelty in this era. Due to growth in education people realized what is right and what is wrong. As a result, people who were earlier exploited in their marital relationships are now trying to sort it through various means such as counseling, and mediation, and in some extreme cases they resort to divorce. Section 13(1-b) provides that desertion is a ground for divorce.

ARGUMENTS

In the case of D. Narsimha, Inarsimlu V. Smt D Anita Vaishnavi (CMA No. 68 Of 2022) the arguments advanced by the appellant husband and respondent wife are as follows,

Contentions of the appellant – Husband

o   The respondent has subjected the appellant to physical and mental cruelty by lodging multiple criminal cases against him.

o   Those criminal cases lodged by the respondent were later dismissed which creates suspicion on the truth of her accusations against the appellant.

o   These multiple cases filed by the respondent damaged the reputation of the appellant in the society which resulted in losing his job as a teacher and impacted in life negatively.

o   The wife has left the matrimonial house in 2011 and has only returned back in 2015. Again after staying for few days she lodged more cases against the appellant which amounts to cruelty.

o   The trial court should have granted the divorce based on the grounds of cruelty and desertion based on the petition filed by the appellant.

Contentions of the respondent – wife

o   The respondent did not dispute filing five criminal complaints against the appellant.

o  The only contention raised by the respondent is the concern that if the appellant is granted a divorce, he will not maintain the respondent financially.

RATIONALE

The High court stated that the concept of cruelty is not exhaustive and highlighted that depriving the spouse from being on Facebook and Instagram may also amount to cruelty. Thus, the physical and mental cruelty is changed its colors with the development of the society.

Justice Bhattacharya held that the repeated filing of criminal cases upon the spouse constitute mental cruelty and emphasized that cruelty is just one of the splinters of a collapsing structure where the substratum of the marriage has broken down in a way in which the structure cannot be preserved or re-built.[ii]

The Division bench granted divorce and set aside the order passed by the trial court upon this matter and said that the appellant entitled under the ground of cruelty and martial bond broken down.

OPINION

o   Before knocking the doors of courts for family issues the parties could have resorted to alternative dispute resolution that is mediation which might have led to the amicable settlement of dispute and would not have damaged the reputation of the appellant.

o   The parties have a child. The welfare of the child should be the primary concern. Both parties should consider the impact of their actions on the child and strive to minimize any negative effects.

o   The parties might have resorted to divorce by mutual consent which could have ignored the filing of a number of allegations against each other. Through mutual consented divorce parties could have separated without damaging the respect of each other.

CONCLUSION

In the appeal (C.M.A. No.68 of 2022) against the order dated 02.11.2021 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar in Hindu Marriage Original Petition No.20 of 2018, the Hon'ble Court, per Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, set aside the Trial Court's decision dismissing the appellant's petition for divorce. The Court enshrined that the appellant had established a case of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the respondent had filed multiple criminal cases against the appellant, causing significant mental distress and disruption to his life. Additionally, the marriage was deemed to have broken down irretrievably, with no chance of reconciliation. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, granting the appellant a decree of divorce. The decision emphasizes that while the Court must ensure fairness and justice, it cannot compel parties to remain in a marriage when the relationship has completely deteriorated, and there is no intention from either party to resume matrimonial life. The Court also noted that the respondent is free to seek maintenance through separate proceedings. This case has provided a wide interpretation of the term “cruelty” and how matrimonial disputes change in accordance with societal changes.

REFERENCES

[i] Sparsh Upadhyay, Depriving spouse of being on Facebook, Instagram; Damaging partner’s Reputation/Social Standing May Amount to Cruelty: Telangana HC, LIVELAW.IN (29 June, 2024) www.livelaw.in 

[ii]D. Narsimha, Inarsimlu V. Smt D Anita Vaishnavi, CMA No. 68 Of 2022,  https://tshc.gov.in (last visited July 7, 2024).