Calling Husband 'Paaltu Chooha', Asking Him To Leave Parents Is Cruelty: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a Family Court's decision of granting divorce to a man whose wife called him a paaltoo chooha (pet rat) for obeying his parents and refusing to comply with her persistent demands of living separately from her in-laws.In the present case— the appellant wife had deserted the respondent husband and the Family Court had accepted a plea of divorce intimated by the husband.In this context, a Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held,“The oral testimonies of the respondent and his family, the documentary evidence of coercion, and castigation of the appellant lie squarely within the legal framework of cruelty. The own admissions made by appellant through cross-examination, including acknowledgement of her desertion, further validate the case of respondent. Consequently, this appeal must fail. In view of foregoing discussion, we conclude that the husband has proved his case for the grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and wife has failed to prove her case for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.”The Court also took note of a testimony, of the appellant wife where she had acknowledged the sending of a text message stating:“if you leave your parents and stay with me, respond; otherwise don't ask.” In light of this message, the Division Bench held,“Though styled as conditional, this message confirms her insistence on the respondent abandoning his parents. This conduct cannot be considered benign; rather, it belies the claim of innocence and instead underscores mental cruelty, particularly in the context of Indian joint family values, where compelling a spouse to forsake his parents is held as cruelty.”BackgroundThe marriage between the appellant wife and respondent husband was solemnised in 2009 and the couple had a son out of the wedlock.The husband had sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, stating that his wife constantly provoked him against his parents and insisted that they should live separately, away from the matrimonial homeAdditionally, it was also claimed that the wife called him a Paaltoo Chooha (pet rat) for obeying his parents. After the birth of their child, it was stated that the wife left for her parental home and never returned thereafter.While the wife had denied all charges, claiming that the husband had neglected her emotionally and financially, the Family Court had passed the decree of divorce in 2019. Aggrieved, the wife approached the High CourtShe submitted that the Family Court's findings were perverse and erroneous, and had failed to consider the submission that she had, at no point of time, misbehaved with her in-laws, nor did she provoke her husband to separate from his parents. She also argued that the Family Court had failed to consider her efforts of reconciliation.Supporting the Family Court's judgment, the husband alleged that the behavior of the appellant wife was far from conducive to a healthy marital environment and she kept misbehaving with her in-laws and created a hostile atmosphere within the matrimonial home. Additionally, he submitted that she kept pestering him to live separately from his parents, leading to mental and emotional strain on him and his family members. FindingsThe Court noted that the appellant wife, in her testimony, had not provided a plausible justification for her prolonged stay at her parental home. In this regard, the Court noted,“The evidence of respondent, which was largely unchallenged, established she did not return, except for a brief reprieve from mid–October to early November, 2011 during a community reconciliation meeting at Dudhadhari Math, and thereafter remained away. The appellant confirmed this fact in cross-examination. The Court correctly found that as of the filing date of the petition (21.04.2016), the appellant had deserted the respondent continuously for well over two years, satisfying the statutory threshold for desertion under Section 13(1)(ib).”The Court thus found that the findings of the Family Court were neither perverse nor unsustainable.However, while the Court affirmed the judgment of the Family Court, it directed the respondent husband to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as alimony on the grounds that the wife had responsibility to look after their 12 year old son.The appeal was accordingly dismissed.Case Details:Case Number: FA(MAT) No. 10 of 2019Case Title: Smt. Monika Tamrakar v. Prashant Kumar TamrakarClick Here To Read/Download Order

Calling Husband 'Paaltu Chooha', Asking Him To Leave Parents Is Cruelty: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce

Saahas Arora

Tags