Borrowing Money On Interest Without Informing Husband, Stealing Ornaments And Valuables,Levelling Allegations Against Him Etc. Amount To Cruelty: U'khand HC [Read Order]

While hearing an appeal filed by the wife against the Judgment and order dated 7.12.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Suit No. 446/2014, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday (24th August) affirmed the said Judgment and order noting that "the wife, by her own conduct, brought the relationship to a point of irretrievable breakdown."In the said Judgement, the suit of the plaintiff-husband (respondent herein) for dissolution of marriage was decreed by the Family Court.A division bench comprising Justices Narayan Singh Dhanik and Ravi Malimath dismissed the said appeal noting that the wife, without informing her spouse, borrowed money on interest from many persons made purchases on credit, used to steal ornaments and valuables from her own house and levelled so many allegations against her spouse which she failed to substantiate.Notably, when the money was not paid, the lenders, who were gangsters, started threatening the Husband who had to ultimately wind up his business in Mumbai and return to Dehradun.The background of the caseThe marriage of Rajesh Gaur (plaintiff-respondent) was solemnized with Anita Gaur (defendant-appellant) on 12.5.1999 as per Hindu customs and ceremonies. Immediately after the marriage, the couple shifted to Mumbai where the plaintiff-respondent was running his business.On 3.6.2014, husband (plaintiff-respondent) instituted a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the wife (defendant-appellant) seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.In his plaint, it was alleged by the husband that about five years ago, there came a sudden change in the behaviour of her wife and the valuable articles, jewellery, cash etc. started missing from the house.It was alleged by him that 2-3 years thereafter, he started receiving telephone calls of crooked persons asking him either to return the money else he would be abducted.On being asked, his wife informed him that she had borrowed money on interest @ 10 per cent per month and she had also purchased ornaments and clothes on credit.The wife started quarrelling with the husband and she also threatened that she would get him abducted. Also, those who had lent money started chasing the husband and also threatened to capture his flat.Apprehending the threat to his life and liberty, the plaintiff-respondent along with his wife (defendant-appellant) returned to Dehradun on 11.12.2013, thereafter, a Panchayat was held in the village in which the defendant-appellant had admitted her mistakes.On the other hand, the defendant-appellant (the Wife) contested the suit by way of filing the written statement, wherein she denied the allegations of the plaintiff-respondent.However, she admitted that she had borrowed money amounting to approximately rupees ten lakhs on interest as the plaintiff-respondent had stopped giving money for household expenses.She submitted that she was being badly harassed by the plaintiff-respondent; and that she made a complaint in the Women Cell and also lodged a case under Section 494 IPC against the plaintiff-respondent.The Court below, after examining the evidence, decreed the suit for divorce holding that the reasons stated for instituting the suit and the acts alleged by the plaintiff against his wife does come under the category of cruelty.The observation of the High CourtThe High Court took note of the fact that the word 'Cruelty' has not been defined under the Act, and that the same could be physical or mental.In this context, the court remarked,"In the matrimonial life, cruelty may be of unfounded variety. But before the conduct called cruelty, it must touch the certain pitch of severity and conduct should be such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It should be wilful and unjustifiable conduct. The enquiry, therefore, has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character or not?" (emphasis supplied)The court relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Further, the court took note of the fact that the defendant-appellant also made allegations against the plaintiff-respondent which she failed to substantiateIn fact, the wife had alleged that her husband was a characterless person and he had illicit extra-marital relations with another woman and subsequently, he married to yet another woman.[Note: The Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur v. Manjeet Singh (Dead), 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1069 , has held that bald allegations of illegitimate relationship made by a husband against the wife amounts to mental cruelty.]Further, the court in the present matter observed that all these were unfounded allegations against the plaintiff-respondent (the Husband). Consequently, the bench said,"All these acts and conduct, in our...

Borrowing Money On Interest Without Informing Husband, Stealing Ornaments And Valuables,Levelling Allegations Against Him Etc. Amount To Cruelty: U'khand HC [Read Order]

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags