Pressurizing Only Son To Abandon His 68-Year-Old Widowed Mother Is Mental Cruelty: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that persistent pressure by a wife upon her husband, the only son of his 68-year-old widowed mother, to leave the mother and set up a separate household amounts to mental cruelty and entitles the husband to a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,

“The attempt to deprive the appellant's mother of her son's company in the twilight years of her life is a cruel act on the part of the respondent.”

Appellant was married to the respondent on 17.02.2000 in accordance with Hindu rites, and two daughters were born of the marriage. The only son of his parents, he lived with his widowed mother, aged 68, at Mainpuri. It was pleaded that the respondent kept pressing him to come away to her parental home at Etawah, that she insulted and misbehaved with his mother.

It was pleaded that from the very beginning of the marriage she demanded that he live separately from the mother, the demand hardening with time. She was also said to have threatened him with false dowry cases, taking advantage of being the daughter of a police personnel.

It was alleged that on 06.07.2012 the respondent left for her parental home with her jewellery and streedhan, including jewellery belonging to the appellant's mother, and cash of Rs. 50,000/-. She did not return, and on 03.03.2015 she finally refused the appellant her company. He then filed a petition before the Family Court, Mainpuri seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, in the alternative, divorce under Section 13.

Summons could not be served on the respondent, substituted service by publication was resorted to on 28.05.2016, and the matter was directed to proceed ex parte on 22.09.2016. No written statement was filed and the respondent did not appear at any stage.

By judgment and decree dated 12.07.2017, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri dismissed the petition ex parte with costs. While recording that the respondent may have been pressing the appellant to live separately, the Trial Court disbelieved the case about the jewellery and the cash, observing that no one had seen her take them away, and the appellant's mother was not produced as a witness. It noted that no bills were filed. It also held that an allegation of that kind was so damaging that no wife could live with her husband once it was made.

Reappreciating the evidence as a court of first appeal, the High Court held that the Trial Court had taken the evidence apart piecemeal to find fault with it, and had not even framed issues.

“We are afraid that the Trial Court had tried a matrimonial petition as a criminal trial of theft and disbelieved the evidence of cruelty on the ground that the story set up in relation to the taking away of jewellery and cash could not be proved.”

The Court agreed that an allegation in the nature of theft ought to have been avoided between spouses, as it can seriously impair mutual trust. It held, however, that the case of cruelty did not rest on the jewellery and the cash alone; the pressure on the appellant to abandon his aged widowed mother stood separately pleaded and proved.

On the respondent's absence, the Court held that an undefended trial does not yield a decree as a matter of course. It held that the plaintiff must still make out a valid cause of action on reliable evidence, with the court acting as the final filter.

It held that where a material assertion in examination-in-chief goes unchallenged, its truth is taken to be admitted. An ex parte decree must nonetheless answer the description of a judgment under Order XX Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reasons being the link between the material on record and the conclusion reached, held the Court. The judgment under appeal, the Court held, did not pass that test.

The Court also found that the appellant had been made to live with the apprehension of a false complaint.

“Sowing such seed in the mind of a person itself may destabilize a common man and would definitely constitute cruelty if the imputations are found to be correct.”

On whether restitution and divorce can be sought in one petition, the Court relied on Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Smt. Krishna Devi v. Additional Civil Judge, Bijnor and held the alternative prayers to be amenable in one matrimonial petition, though only one can be granted.

“By dismissing the matrimonial petition instituted by the appellant husband in toto, which was carries the alternative reliefs for a decree of divorce and restitution of conjugal rights is puts the appellant in a limbo that can never be the intention of the statue and no ends of justice are served for either party/ spouse.”

Reading Sections 14 and 16 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Court further held that a Family Court may go beyond the strict rules of relevance and admissibility, and beyond the technicalities of the Evidence Act, in receiving evidence it finds relevant to the dispute.

Holding that the uncontroverted pleadings and the untested testimony of the three witnesses established cruelty, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court. The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce, the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights being rendered otiose.

No claim for permanent alimony having been made, it was left open to the respondent to move an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.