9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for proving the mental cruelty for grant of divorce against the Appellant, we find that none of the grounds satisfies either individually or collectively the test laid down in Samar Ghosh's case so as to entitle the Respondent to claim a decree of divorce. A petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the date of petition cannot furnish a subsisting cause of action to seek divorce after 10 years or so of occurrence of such incidents. The incidents alleged should be of recurring nature or continuing one and they should be in near proximity with the filing of the petition - Few isolated incidents of long past and that too found to have been condoned due to compromising behavior of the parties cannot constitute an act of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Act. Both the Courts below failed to take note of this material aspect of the case and thus committed jurisdictional error in passing a decree for dissolution of marriage - We cannot, therefore, countenance the approach of the High Court because it did not, in the first instance, examine the grounds taken in the petition to find out as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissing the petition filed by the Appellant (wife) for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. Facts, in brief, to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeals need mention infra. 3. The marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnized on 26.02.1999 at Delhi as per the Hindu rites. The Respondent-husband is working as Caretaker in the Government of NCT of Delhi whereas the Appellant is a housewife. Out of this wedlock, one daughter was born on 15.06.2002 and the second daughter was born on 10.02.2006. Both daughters are living with the Appellant. 4. On 11.07.2010, the Respondent (husband) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as The Act ) in the Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi against the Appellant (wife). The Respondent sought decree for dissolution of marriage essentially on the ground of cruelty . 5. In substance, the Respondent, in his petition, pleaded 9 instances which, according to him, constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the Appellant. 6. The first ground of cruelty was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the behavior of the Appellant with the friends of the Respondent who had come to the Respondent's house. According to the Respondent, the family members did not like it (Para 17). 14. The ninth ground of cruelty was that one day in year 2010, the Appellant visited the Respondent's office and misbehaved with the Respondent in the presence of other officials (Para 27). 15. The Respondent also alleged some instances in the petition. They, however, again essentially relate to the Appellant's behaviour with the Respondent and his family members. 16. The Appellant filed her written statement and denied these allegations. The Appellant also applied for restitution of conjugal rights against the Respondent in the same proceedings by filing petition Under Section 9 of the Act and inter alia alleged in her petition that it was the Respondent who has withdrawn from her company without there being a reasonable cause. She also while denying the case set up by the Respondent justified her case for restitution of conjugal rights. 17. The Trial Court framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings in the case: 1. Whether after solemnization of marriage, the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at amounts to mental cruelty was succinctly explained by this Court (three Judge Bench) in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511]. Their Lordships speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari observed that no uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet it is appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behavior which may be considered relevant in dealing with the cases of mental cruelty . 24. Their Lordships then broadly enumerated 16 category of cases which are considered relevant while examining the question as to whether the facts alleged and proved constitute mental cruelty so as to attract the provisions of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act for granting decree of divorce. 25. Keeping in view the law laid down in Samar Ghosh's case (supra), when we examine the grounds taken by the Respondent in his petition for proving the mental cruelty for grant of divorce against the Appellant, we find that none of the grounds satisfies either individually or collectively the test laid down in Samar Ghosh's case (supra) so as to entitle the Respondent to claim a decree of divorce. 26. This we hold for more than one reason. First, almost all the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, though concurrent does not bind this Court. 32. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that an incident which occurred somewhere in 2010 when the Appellant visited the office of the Respondent and alleged to have misbehaved with the Respondent in front of other officers would constitute an act of cruelty on the part of the Appellant so as to enable the Respondent to claim divorce. In the first place, no decree for divorce on one isolated incident can be passed. Secondly, there could be myriad reasons for causing such isolated incident. Merely because both exchanged some verbal conversation in presence of others would not be enough to constitute an act of cruelty unless it is further supported by some incidents of alike nature. It was not so. 33. We are also not impressed by the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that since the Appellant had made allegation against the Respondent of his having extra-marital relation and hence such allegation would also constitute an act of cruelty on the part of the Appellant entitling the Respondent to claim decree for dissolution of marriage. 34. Similarly, we are also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
