Supreme Court of India
JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR versus BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR on 26 February 2021
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 117
JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR
v.
BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3786-3787 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 26, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARIAND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on the ground of mentalcruelty – When reputation of spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues,his superiors and society at large, he cannot be expected to condonesuch conduct and continue with the matrimonial relationship – Inthe instant case, army officer’s career and reputation suffered dueto wife’s defamatory complaints to his superior in the Army and tothe State Women Commission and also defamatory materials postedon other platforms – Explanation of wife that she made thosecomplaints in order to protect the matrimonial ties did not justifythe persistent effort made by her to undermine the dignity andreputation of husband – High Court refused to grant relief to husbandon the ground that there was no definite finding that the wife’sallegations were false – This was not the correct way to deal withthe issue – Husband entitled to divorce.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce – Allegation of mentalcruelty – The degree of tolerance varies from one couple to anotherand the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the levelof education and also the status of the parties, in order to determinewhether cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage,at the instance of the wronged party.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. For considering dissolution of marriage at theinstance of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of suchmental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continuewith the matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wrongedparty cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continueto live with his/her spouse. The materials in the present case
117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Areveal that the respondent had made several defamatorycomplaints to the appellant’s superiors in the Army for which, aCourt of inquiry was held by the Army authorities against theappellant. Primarily for those, the appellant’s career progressgot affected. The Respondent was also making complaints to otherauthorities, such as, the State Commission for Women and hasBposted defamatory materials on other platforms. The net outcomeof above is that the appellant’s career and reputation had suffered.[Paras 10, 11][121-G-H; 122-A-B, C-D]
2. When the appellant has suffered adverse consequencesin his life and career on account of the allegations made by theCrespondent, the legal consequences must follow and those cannotbe prevented only because, no Court has determined that theallegations were false. The High Court however felt that withoutany definite finding on the credibility of the wife’s allegation, thewronged spouse would be disentitled to relief. This is not foundDto be the correct way to deal with the issue. Proceeding with theabove understanding, the question which requires to be answeredhere is whether the conduct of the respondent would fall withinthe realm of mental cruelty. Here the allegations are levelled bya highly educated spouse and they do have the propensity toirreparably damage the character and reputation of the appellant.EWhen the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst hiscolleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would bedifficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affectedparty. [Paras 12, 13][122-E-G]
3. The explanation of the wife that she made thoseFcomplaints in order to protect the matrimonial ties would notjustify the persistent effort made by her to undermine the dignityand reputation of the appellant. In circumstances like this, thewronged party cannot be expected to continue with thematrimonial relationship and there is enough justification for himGto seek separation. Therefore, the High Court was in error indescribing the broken relationship as normal wear and tear ofmiddle class married life. It is a definite case of cruelty inflictedby the respondent against the appellant and as such enoughjustification is found to set aside the impugned judgment of the H
High Court and to restore the order passed by the Family Court.The appellant is accordingly held entitled to dissolution of hismarriage and consequently the respondent’s application forrestitution of conjugal rights stands dismissed. [Paras 14 and15][122-G-H; 123-A-C]
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 : [2007]4 SCR 428 – referred to Case Law Reference [2007] 4 SCR 428 referred toPara 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3786-3787 Of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.06.2019 of the High Courtof Uttarakhand at Nainital in First Appeal No. 81 of 2017 and in FirstAppeal No. 82 of 2017
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Gupta, Rook Ray,Aakash Khattar, Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav Goel, Ahmad Ibrahim, S. K.Verma, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, the learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellant (Husband). Also heard Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim,learned counsel appearing for the respondent (Wife).
2. The challenge in these appeals is to the analogous judgmentand order dated 25.6.2019 in the First Appeal No. 81 of 2017 and FirstAppeal No. 82 of 2017 whereby the High Court of Uttarakhand hadallowed both appeals by reversing the common order dated 4.7.2017 ofthe Family Court, Dehradun. Before the Family Court, the appellantsucceeded with his case for dissolution of marriage but the respondentfailed to secure a favourable verdict in her petition for restitution ofconjugal rights.
3. The appellant is an Army Officer with M.Tech qualification.The respondent is holding a faculty position in the Government P GCollege, Tehri with Ph.d degree. They got married on 27.9.2006 andlivedtogether for few months at Vishakhapatnam and at Ludhiana.But fromthe initial days of married life, differences cropped up and since 15.9.2007,the couple have lived apart.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A4. Following the estrangement, the appellant earlier applied fordivorce from the Family Court at Vishakhapatnam. The respondent thenfiled a petition against the respondent in the Dehradun Court for restitutionof conjugal rights. Later, when she learnt of the case filed by the appellantat Vishakhapatnam, the respondent filed Transfer Petition (C) No. 1366/2011 before this Court. The appellant appeared before the SupremeBCourt and stated that the case at Vishakhapatnam would bewithdrawn.This Court then recorded the following order:
A
“Counsel for the respondent states that the respondent wouldwithdraw his petition pending before the Family Court atVisakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh and in case he has to file anyCpetition seeking any relief against the petitioner (his estrangedwife), he will file the petition only before the proper Court atDehradun, Uttarakhand.
In view of the statement made at the Bar, the petitioner is leftwith no grievance.
D
The transfer petition is disposed of.
We may, however, observe that in case the respondent files apetition at Dehradun, the Dehradun Court shall take it up anddispose it of expeditiously and without any undue loss of time.”
E5. In the divorce proceeding, the appellant pleaded that he wassubjected to numerous malicious complaints by the respondent whichhave affected his career and loss of reputation, resulting in mental cruelty.On the other hand, the respondent in her case for restitution of conjugalrights contended that the husband without any reasonable cause hadFdeserted her and accordingly she pleaded for direction to the appellant,for resumption of matrimonial life.
6. The Family Court at Dehradun analogously considered bothcases. The learned judge applied his mind to the evidence led by theparties, the documents on record and the arguments advanced by therespective counsel and gave a finding that the respondent had failed toGestablish her allegation of adultery against the husband. It was furtherfound that the respondent had subjected the appellant to mental crueltywith her complaints to the Army and other authorities. Consequently, theCourt allowed the appellant’s suit for dissolution of marriage andsimultaneously dismissed the respondent’s petition for restitution ofHconjugal rights.
7. The aggrieved parties then filed respective First Appeals beforethe Uttarakhand High Court. On consideration of the pleadings and theissues framed by the trial Court, the High Court noted that cruelty is thecore issue in the dispute. The Court then proceeded to examine whetherthe wife with her complaints to various authorities including the Army’stop brass, had treated the appellant with cruelty to justify his plea fordissolution of marriage. While it was found that the wife did write tovarious authorities commenting on the appellant’s character and conduct,the Division Bench opined that those cannot be construed as crueltysince no court has concluded that those allegations were false orfabricated. According to the Court, the conduct of the parties againsteach other wouldat best be squabbles ofordinary middle class marriedlife. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the decree for dissolution ofmarriage and allowed the respondent’s suit for restitution of conjugalrights,under the impugned judgment.
8. Challenging the High Court’s decision, Mr. GopalSankaranarayanan, the learned Senior Counsel highlights that therespondent had filed a series of complaints against the appellant beforethe superior officers in the Army upto the level of the Chief of ArmyStaff and to other authorities and these complaints have irreparablydamaged the reputation and mental peace of the appellant.The appellantcannot therefore be compelled to resume matrimonial life with therespondent, in the face of such unfounded allegations and cruel treatment.Moreover, matrimonial life lasted only for few months and the couplehave been separated since 15.9.2007 and after all these years, restitutionwould not be justified or feasible.
9. Per contra, Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, the learned counsel submitsthat the respondent is keen to resume her matrimonial life with theappellant. According to the counsel, the respondent wrote letters andfiled complaints only to assert her legal right as the married wife of theappellant and those communications should therefore be understood asefforts made by the wife to preserve the marital relationship. It is furthercontended that only because the appellant had filed the divorce casebefore the Vishakhapatnam Court and had obtained an ex-parte order,the respondent was constrained to write to various authorities to asserther right as the legally wedded wife of the appellant.
10. For considering dissolution of marriage at the instance of aspouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of such mental cruelty must AB
C
DE
F
G
H
Abe such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial relationship.In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone suchconduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerancewill vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear inmind the background, the level of education and also the status of theparties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient toBjustify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. InSamar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh[1], this Court gave illustrative cases whereinference of mental cruelty could be drawn even while emphasizing thatno uniform standard can be laid down and each case will have to bedecided on its own facts.C11. The materials in the present case reveal that the respondenthad made several defamatory complaints to the appellant’s superiors inthe Army for which, a Court of inquiry was held by the Army authoritiesagainst the appellant. Primarily for those,the appellant’s career progressgot affected. The Respondent was also making complaints to otherDauthorities, such as, the State Commission for Women and has posteddefamatory materials on other platforms.The net outcome of above isthat the appellant’s career and reputation had suffered.
12. When the appellant has suffered adverse consequences in hislife and career on account of the allegations made by the respondent,Ethe legal consequences must follow and those cannot be prevented onlybecause, no Court has determined that the allegations were false. TheHigh Court however felt that without any definite finding on the credibilityof the wife’s allegation, the wronged spouse would be disentitled to relief.This is not found to be the correct way to deal with the issue.
F13. Proceeding with the above understanding, the question whichrequires to be answered here is whether the conduct of the respondentwould fall within the realm of mental cruelty. Here the allegations arelevelled by a highly educated spouse and they do have the propensity toirreparably damage the character and reputation of the appellant. Whenthe reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues, his superiorsGand the society at large, it would be difficult to expect condonation ofsuch conduct by the affected party.
14. The explanation of the wife that she made those complaints inorder to protect the matrimonial ties would not in our view, justify the persistent effort made by her to undermine the dignity and reputation ofthe appellant. In circumstances like this, the wronged party cannot beexpected to continue with the matrimonial relationship and there is enoughjustification for him to seek separation.
15. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the HighCourt was in error in describing the broken relationship as normal wearand tear of middle class married life. It is a definite case of crueltyinflicted by the respondent against the appellant and as such enoughjustification is found to set aside the impugned judgment of the HighCourt and to restore the order passed by the Family Court. The appellantis accordingly held entitled to dissolution of his marriage and consequentlythe respondent’s application for restitution of conjugal rights standsdismissed. It is ordered accordingly.
16. With the above order, the appeals stand disposed of leavingthe parties to bear their own cost.
Devika Gujral
Appeals disposed of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H