Scribd
Upload
20 views8 pages

Divorce Petition for Cruelty in Marriage

The Family Court of Sivagangai dismissed a divorce petition filed by Nagarajan against his wife Sathya on the grounds of cruelty, stating that the allegations made were general in nature and did not constitute sufficient evidence of marital discord. The court emphasized that mere differences in opinion and ordinary marital disputes do not amount to cruelty as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to a decree of divorce and ordered both parties to bear their own costs.

Uploaded by

kumarsumathi784
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views8 pages

Divorce Petition for Cruelty in Marriage

The Family Court of Sivagangai dismissed a divorce petition filed by Nagarajan against his wife Sathya on the grounds of cruelty, stating that the allegations made were general in nature and did not constitute sufficient evidence of marital discord. The court emphasized that mere differences in opinion and ordinary marital disputes do not amount to cruelty as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to a decree of divorce and ordered both parties to bear their own costs.

Uploaded by

kumarsumathi784
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

In the Court of Family Court Judge, Sivagangai

Present : Thiru. A. Subramanian, [Link]., B.L.,


Judge, Family Court, Sivagangai.
Thursday, the 15th day of February 2018
Hindu Marriage Original Petition No. 152 /2017

Nagarajan ----- Petitioner


Vs
Sathya @ Sakthi Priyadharshni ----- Respondent

This petition was finally coming up before this court for hearing on
07.02.2018, in the presence of learned Advocate Thiru. Kumarasamy
representing for the petitioner and learned Advocate Thiru. Kumar representing for
the respondent, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and on perusal of available
records and evidence, and stood over for consideration till date, this court made the
following.
ORDER
This application has been filed to grant the decree of divorce U/s 13 (1)(i-a) of
Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty, by dissolving the marriage, which was
solemnized on 24.06.2009, between the petitioner and respondent.
2. Brief averments of the petition:
Petitioner and respondent got themselves married on 24.06.2009 at
Singampunari. Spouses lead their marital life at [Link] Village.
Subsequently on 23.08.2009 spouses shifted the residence to Thathaneri. Respondent
refused to live with the petitioner. Respondent bequeathed a female child on
27.03.2010. Subsequently respondent stayed at her parents house and continued her
further studies. Then the respondent served as Teacher at Madurai by staying near
Arappalayam. Then and there, the respondent used to abuse the petitioner by
mentioning the lack of facility prevailing at the petitioner's house. In the year 2013,
the respondent quarreled with the petitioner and his family members and gone to her
parent's house without intimation to the petitioner/husband. In the year 2014 the
petitioner brought back the respondent to his house. Again the respondent quit away
-2-
from the husband house. The respondent is leveling false allegation against the
petitioner. Hence this petitioner is to be granted with the relief of divorce.
3. Brief averments in the Counter:
Marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is admitted.
Petitioner forcibly sent the respondent to her parent's house. Further the petitioner
not provided medical assistance to the respondent. Respondent bequeathed female
child. Petitioner not properly maintained the respondent and the child. On
14.04.2014 petitioner and the respondent stayed at [Link] at Petitioner's
house. Next day the petitioner went to Meenakshi Mission Hospital and not returned
to house. Hence during June 2014 the respondent along with her child went to her
parents house. Petitioner compelled to cause miscarriage. Doctor advised that the
abortion can not be done at that stage. Hence the respondent delivered the 2 nd child.
Petitioner is having sufficient means. Petitioner was ordered to pay monthly
maintenance to the petitioner and two children, by the Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruppathur in MC 17/2015. But the petitioner not obeyed the order of the learned
Judicial Magistrate. Hence this petition is to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioner, one witness was examined as PW1 , and six
exhibits were marked as Ex.P1 to P6. On the respondent side one witness was
examined as RW1 and one exhibit was marked as Ex.R1. Arguments heard on both
sides. Available records perused.
5. The issue to be decided in this case is:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the get the decree of divorce
on the ground of cruelty U/s 13 (1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act?
6. It is admitted by both sides that the marriage between the petitioner and
the respondent was solemnized on 24.06.2009. The marriage invitation has been
marked as Ex.P1. Hence, as per Ex.P1, it is decided that the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent was taken place on 24.06.2009. No proof to consider
that the said marriage has been dissolved so far. Hence it is decided that the said
marriage is still valid and in force.
-3-
7. Now the petitioner has filed this application seeking the relief of divorce
against his wife, on the ground of cruelty. The expression “cruelty” has not been
defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for
dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such
character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise
to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Now the court has to appraise the
available evidence whether the alleged act of the respondent comes into the purview
of cruelty as envisaged as cruelty in the eye of law.
8. The allegation of cruelty leveled by the petitioner that the respondent
quarreled with the petitioner as the petitioner/husband is living in less facility and the
respondent abused the family members of the petitioner and she frequently gone to
her parents house. This allegation or nothing but ordinary wear and tear of marital
life. This difference of opinion between the spouses and this type of altercation
between the spouses are not the cruelty. The ordinary wear and tear of the day today
marital life can not form the basis for divorce. This fact has been enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex court in the following verdict...
2017 (2)LW 673
[Link] Vs [Link]
Cruelty must be strictly proved. Burden- Scope -To
amount to cruelty the acts must be of a very serious
nature than mere wear and tear of married life

From the above decision it is very clear to note that the ordinary wear and tear, in the
day today marital life, can not be termed as cruelty to procure the relief of divorce. It
is well obvious that the cruelty must be in such a nature that the spouse can not live
together. Mere existence of difference of opinion can not be considered as cruelty.
This fact has been well defined by the Hon'ble Supreme court by the following
verdict...
-4-
AIR 2006 SC 1675
Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli
Cruelty in fact, must obviously depend upon the
particular circumstances. The passing of a decree on
this ground requires the matrimonial offence to be
established so as to conclude that cruelty has resulted in
to a situation where the spouses can no longer live
together.

From the catena above verdict, it is obvious to note that the alleged matrimonial
offence of cruelty must be in such a nature that the spouses can no longer live
together. In the instance case, there is no acceptable evidence to consider that the
spouses can not live together hereafter. The existence of allegation is not enough.
There must be a marital discard and wrong doings. Otherwise the decree of divorce
will not result. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the
following verdict...
AIR 2003 Raj. 280
Rajneesh Vs Savita
Mere existence of grounds for a divorce is not
enough. There must be clear findings of marital
discord and wrong doing which could result in a
decree

In the instance case also, there is no finding of marital discord among this spouses.
In such a situation the decree of divorce can not be resulted mere on existence of
allegations. Obviously the allegation leveled by the petitioner side are of general in
nature. The allegation against the respondent that the respondent is quarrelsome and
she had not shown respect to the parents of the petitioner, and she left away from the
matrimonial home without husband's consent. This allegations are not grave enough
to procure the relief of divorce. This same principle has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent verdict...
-5-
MAT. APP. (F.C) 161/2017 (Delhi High Court)
D........... Vs P @ R............
(Decided on December 15, 2017)
Spouses seeking divorce must give specific details
and also furnish proof, from which court may be able
to draw an inference that it is impossible to live with
erring spouse. Reasons for seeking divorce must been
grave and weighty.........................................................
Trial court rightly declined divorce on general
allegations made by appellant - husband that wife was
(i) quarrelsome, (ii) disrespectful to him and his
parents, (iii) her attitude was self - centered keeping
aloofness from in - laws, (iv) her brothers threatened
him, and (v) leaving matrimonial home without
husband's consent.

From the principles of the above verdict, it is well obvious to note that the above
mentioned allegations are general in nature and without any proof that this spouses
can no longer live together, the above allegations can be considered only as general in
nature, and for which, the relief of divorce can not result. In the instance case also
the averments are nothing but general in nature as mentioned above. No proof to
consider that there is an endanger for the spouses in the marital life. In such a
situation the petitioner can not get the decree of divorce.
9. Further, it was argued by the petitioner side that the respondent caused
miscarriage herself without the consent of the petitioner/husband and hence this act
of miscarriage is to be treated as cruelty. This argument is not supported by fruitful
evidence. Petitioner alleges that the respondent caused miscarriage without the
consent of petitioner. On other hand, respondent stated that the petitioner himself
insisted for causing miscarriage. Then, the petitioner has the liability to prove the
alleged fact that the miscarriage was caused against his will and wish. But there is no
such proof to establish the allegation of the above. Hence it is obvious that the
alleged causing of miscarriage can not be considered as a matrimonial act of cruelty
committed by the respondent. Hence the argument of the petitioner side in this
regard is rejected as untenable.
-6-
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent filed a false
complaint before police station against the petitioner herein, and hence the petitioner
got mental agony, and hence the act of the respondent is to be considered as cruelty.
In support of this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred the citation
published in (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 296. As per the referred citation a false
complaint and consequent loss of reputation and standing in society was proved and
hence the divorce was granted. But in this case the petitioner failed to prove the
allegation of false complaint. Copy of the complaint filed before police station has
not been filed at this case. Further there is no proof to consider that the alleged police
complaint has been decided as a false one. Hence neither the complaint before police
nor the finding on the complaint has been acceptably proved by the petitioner. In
such occasion, this forum can not presume that the respondent herein has preferred
any false complaint before police. In fact, the respondent filed a complaint before
learned Judicial Magistrate court Thiruppathur. But the order of that court was not
obeyed by the petitioner/husband and he filed to pay the maintenance amount. Hence
the fact enumerated in the above referred citation is not resembled with the facts of
the instance case and hence the argument of the petitioner side in this regard is
rejected as not acceptable.
11. In the instance case there is no acceptable evidence to consider that the
petitioner has reasonable apprehension to live together with the respondent. In such
an occasion the petitioner can not get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
This principle has been enunciated in the following verdict...

AIR 1995 Bom. 246


Rajan Ravankar Vs Shobha
The petitioner must prove that the respondent has
treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that
it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live
with the respondent.
-7-
From the above verdict when we decide the instance case, it is pertinent to note that
there is no evidence to consider that the petitioner had reasonable apprehension in his
mind that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with his wife. Considering
above all facts and circumstances it is decided that the allegation leveled by the
petitioner against the respondent has not been proved as a matrimonial offence of
cruelty to procure the result of divorce. Further it is obvious to note that the
petitioner has not abide the order of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate court in MC 17/2015 and declined to pay the maintenance amount to his
wife so far. Hence considering all to above facts and circumstances, it is decided
that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty
U/s 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly the issue is answered.

In the result it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is not granted with the relief
of divorce against the respondent on the ground of cruelty U/s 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu
Marriage Act and the petition is dismissed. Considering the nature of this case and
considering the relationship of parties, it is hereby ordered that both parties have to
bear their cost on their own.

Dictated by me directly to the Typist, typed by her through computer, corrected


by me, and pronounced by me in open court today on 15th day of February 2018.

Judge
Family Court, Sivagangai.
Petitioner side witness:
PW1. Thiru. Nagarajan

Petitioner side documents:


Ex.P1 24.06.2009 Marriage invitation
Ex.P2 - Xerox copy of the Voter ID of Nagarajan
Ex.P3 - Xerox copy of the petition
filed before JM court Thiruppathur
-8-
Ex.P4. 01.11.2016 True copy of the order in MC 7/2015
of JM court Thiruppathur
Ex.P5. 19.12.2016 Copy of the lawyer notice issued
on behalf of [Link]
Ex.P6. - Xerox copy of aathaar card of [Link]
Respondent side Witness:
RW1 Tmt. Sathya @ Sakthi Priyadharshini
Respondent side document:
Ex.R1. 05.01.2016 Copy of the reply lawyer notice issued
on behalf of Tmt. Sathya @ Sakthi Priyadharshini
(A.D card attached.)

Judge
Family Court, Sivagangai.

Common questions

Powered by AI

The Sivagangai Family Court dismissed the divorce petition filed on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act because the allegations were deemed general in nature and not sufficient to establish cruelty. The court noted that for cruelty to be grounds for divorce, it must be serious enough to show that the spouses cannot live together. The ordinary wear and tear of married life does not constitute cruelty . The petitioner failed to provide substantial proof that the respondent's actions were willfully cruel to the extent that it endangered their life or limb, or caused reasonable apprehension of such danger . Further, the claim of a false complaint being filed by the respondent was not sufficiently proven and therefore could not be considered as cruelty .

Within Hindu Marriage law, 'cruelty' is interpreted as conduct that renders cohabitation perilous or involves a reasonable apprehension of such danger. The Sivagangai Family Court elaborated that cruelty can be physical or mental, but must involve serious misconduct beyond normal marital discord. The ruling referenced that cruelty as a ground for divorce is not simply ordinary disagreements, but rather acts that significantly impact the life or limb of the spouse, making the continuation of matrimonial life impossible . The court requires substantial proof for claims of cruelty, distinguishing genuine acts of malice from typical relationship tensions .

The respondent's counterclaims significantly impacted the judgment by undermining the petitioner's allegations of cruelty. The respondent countered that the petitioner forcibly sent her to her parent's house and failed to provide for medical and maintenance needs. These counterclaims, supported by documents like the judicial order for maintenance that was not honored by the petitioner, presented a contrast to the petitioner's accusations and plight . This lack of fulfillment of obligations and the contrast in narratives contributed to the court's decision that the petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty was not justified .

The concept of 'reasonable apprehension' in divorce cases on grounds of cruelty is vital as it determines whether the petitioner believes that continuing to live with the respondent would be harmful or injurious. In the case at Sivagangai Family Court, it was highlighted that without evidence of reasonable apprehension of harm or injury, a claim of cruelty cannot succeed . It requires demonstrable proof that the respondent's actions have led to a situation where the petitioner genuinely fears for their safety or well-being should they continue the marital relationship .

Satisfying judicial requirements for evidence is crucial in divorce proceedings on cruelty grounds, as highlighted by the Sivagangai Family Court. The judgment emphasized that allegations must be substantiated with clear, specific, and credible evidence to be convincing for a decree of divorce. This includes documented proof or third-party corroboration of claims, such as police or medical reports and credible witness testimonies . The case underscored that without such evidence, even if allegations are articulated, they remain insufficient to be legally considered as cruelty warranting a divorce .

General allegations, such as being quarrelsome or disrespectful to in-laws, are insufficient for proving cruelty in divorce proceedings. The Sivagangai Family Court emphasized that serious grounds must demonstrate substantial wrongdoing, such as acts that pose an actual danger to the life or health of the spouse, or create a reasonable apprehension of such danger. The court referred to precedents stating that ordinary wear and tear in a marital relationship do not amount to cruelty, and genuine cruelty must be significant enough that continued cohabitation is untenable . Without specific and significant evidence of maltreatment, allegations remain general and insufficient for divorce .

In divorce cases under the Hindu Marriage Act, evidence plays a crucial role in proving cruelty. The Sivagangai Family Court highlighted that to succeed on such grounds, the petitioner must demonstrate with credible evidence that the respondent's conduct was willfully cruel. This includes documentation or testimonies substantiating claims of harmful actions or significant psychological abuse. The court noted the petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence, such as proof of a false complaint or credible witness accounts, that substantiated claims of cruelty, resulting in the dismissal of the petition . Without convincing evidence, the allegations were considered ordinary marital discord and hence not grounds for divorce .

The Family Court in Sivagangai referenced several precedent cases to elucidate the issue of cruelty, including the ruling in AIR 2006 SC 1675 Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli, which discusses that cruelty must be serious enough to end the possibilities of cohabitation . Additionally, they cited the Delhi High Court's decision in MAT. APP. (F.C) 161/2017 (Delhi High Court), which states that general allegations without specific, proven details cannot justify divorce . These precedents emphasized that cruelty must be demonstrated with significant proof beyond ordinary marital disagreement .

The Family Court at Sivagangai dismissed the petitioner's claims regarding the respondent's alleged miscarriage act due to lack of evidence and conflicting testimonies. The petitioner claimed that the miscarriage was induced against his will, considering it as cruelty. However, the respondent contended that it was done under the petitioner's insistence. The court reinforced that the burden of proof lay with the petitioner to establish that the act was without his consent and amounted to cruelty. With no substantive evidence presented to support the allegation, the claim was deemed untenable .

The Family Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding a false police complaint due to lack of proof. The court noted that the petitioner failed to submit any documentation or evidence to show that the complaint was deemed false by judicial or law enforcement authorities. The absence of a copy of the complaint or an official ruling indicating its falsity made it impossible for the court to consider this as an act of cruelty by the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent's complaints had legal grounding in her ongoing maintenance proceedings, undermining the claim of fabricating false allegations .

You might also like