Unfounded allegations against the spouse for affecting his/her job amounts to mental cruelty: Bombay High Court
Making unfounded allegations against the spouse or his/her relatives in the pleadings or making complaints with a view to affecting the job of the spouse amounts to causing mental cruelty to the said spouse. Bombay High Court bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala gave the judgment in the case of Thalraj vs. Jyoti [Family Appeal no. 70 of 2015] by citing the above-stated reasons. In the instant case, the appellant and the respondent were married to each other on 27-4-2008 and had a kid. The respondent had alleged that in 2010, her husband and his family members started beating her, took all her gold ornaments, and were forced to drive away from her matrimonial house. Therefore, the respondent had filed a case against the appellant u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. But the proceedings were dismissed and therefore the respondent had filed a petition for seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. On the contrary, the appellant and his family members denied all the allegations against them. Appellant had argued that the respondent and her family members belonged to ‘Rajput’ caste but they had obtained spurious caste certificate of belonging to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ for securing employment. The parties led evidence before the Family Court and after considering the same the learned Judge of the Family Court held that the respondent had proved that the appellant was treating her with cruelty. It was further held that the allegation of desertion was not proved since a continuous period of not less than two years prior to the filing of the divorce petition had not elapsed. Hence by the impugned judgment, the Family Court proceeded to pass a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Being aggrieved, the appellant appeared in the High Court. In the High Court, the appellant’s counsel had argued that the allegations with regard to cruelty being inflicted by the appellant were not duly proved by the respondent. It was then submitted that the appellant had brought on record sufficient evidence to indicate that the respondent was suffering from epilepsy and this fact was not disclosed by the family members of the respondent to the family of the appellant before their marriage. But the respondent’s counsel argued that all the allegations were false and the making unsubstantiated false allegations resulted in causing mental cruelty to the respondent. Observing the arguments and pieces of evidence from both the parties, High Court contended that in the written statement the husband did not plead that his wife was suffering from Epilepsy and hence was just a false allegation. It was observed that the husband had made various complaints to his wife’s employer so that they could fire her from the job.
 on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 1 11IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR.FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.70 OF 2015 Thalraj @ Anand s o Jaisingh Khinchi .. APPELLANTAged about 34 years Occu. : Unemployed.R o Binaki Mangalwari Near Cattlepond Rani Durgawati Square Gayatri Sadan Plot No.10 Nagpur. vs Sau. Jyoti w o Thalraj @ Anand Khinchi ..RESPONDENTname before marriage : Jyoti d o Bajrangsingh Chauvan Uccha Prathmik Shala Chankapur Khaparkheda Tq. Saoner District Nagpur.Through its Education OfficerZilla Parishad Nagpur. ..Shri P.K.Mishra Advocate for appellant.Shri A.B.Bambal Advocate for respondent. ...CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA JJ. DATED : 10th February 2021.Judgment : This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 by the husband takes exception to the decree for divorce passed bythe Family Court Nagpur in Petition No. A 459 2012 on 25.09.2014. 2.The facts in brief are that the appellant and the respondentwere married on 27.04.2008. Out of the said wedlock a child was born on03.03.2009. Thereafter the appellant and his family members started ill on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 2 11treating the respondent. During Diwali 2010 the family members of theappellant quarreled with the respondent and after taking away all the goldarticles she was driven away from the matrimonial house. On 06.12.2010she filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 forrestitution of conjugal rights. These proceedings however were withdrawnon 25.04.2012. Thereafter on 14.05.2012 the wife filed Petition No.A 459 2012 seeking a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Inthe said proceedings it was alleged that the appellant and his familymembers were ill treating the respondent physically as well as mentally.The respondent used to be abused time and again by the appellant and hisfamily members as a result of which there were frequent quarrels betweenthem and the respondent was also beaten on some occasions. She wasrequired to do all the household work and other family members did nothelp her in that work. The respondent was required to approach MahilaCell with her grievances and after understanding given to both the parties they started residing together. However this arrangement did notcontinue for long. The respondent after finding it unsafe to continue therelationship filed the present proceedings. 3.In the written statement filed by the appellant the allegationsas made were denied. It was denied that there was any occasion toappear before the Mahila Cell and give any undertaking as pleaded by the on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 3 11respondent. It was also pleaded that the appellant’s sister was residing onthe ground floor and the allegations made against her about ill treatingthe respondent were denied. In the specific pleading it was stated that therespondent and her family members belonged to ‘Rajput’ caste but theyhad obtained spurious caste certificate of belonging to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ forsecuring employment.4.The parties led evidence before the Family Court and afterconsidering the same the learned Judge of the Family Court held that therespondent had proved that the appellant was treating with her cruelty. Itwas further held that the allegation of desertion was not proved sincecontinuous period of not less than two years prior to filing of the divorcepetition had not elapsed. Hence by the impugned judgment the FamilyCourt proceeded to pass a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.5.Shri P.K.Mishra learned counsel for the appellant submittedthat the allegations with regard to cruelty being inflicted by the appellantwere not duly proved by the respondent. He referred to the evidence onrecord to contend that except normal wear and tear of marital life therewas no substantial evidence brought on record by the respondent to provethe ground of cruelty. The appellant’s sister was not residing with theappellant but was residing separately on the ground floor premises of the on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 4 11joint family. There was no truth in the allegation that the appellant’ssister was interfering in the marital life of the appellant and was ill treating the respondent. He further stated that the appellant’s brotherswere also residing separately. In fact it was the respondent who had leftthe matrimonial house on 06.11.2010 and was not ready to reside withthe appellant. Though it was the fact that the parties had approached theMahila Cell same indicated that the appellant did not intend to separatefrom the respondent but wanted to continue the marital ties. It was thensubmitted that the appellant had brought on record sufficient evidence toindicate that the respondent was suffering from epilepsy and this fact wasnot disclosed by the family members of the respondent to the family of theappellant before their marriage. Documentary evidence in that regardwas also placed on record. According to the learned counsel it was notopen for the learned Judge of the Family Court to give importance to theallegation made by the appellant with regard to the family members of therespondent obtaining false caste certificate. Various complaints weremade by the appellant because he was a social worker and this fact couldnot be taken into consideration for passing a decree of divorce. It was thussubmitted that the burden to prove cruelty was on the respondent butwithout the same being established by the respondent the Family Courtproceeded to grant a decree for divorce. He placed reliance on thedecisions in Uttara Praveen Thool Vs. Praveen 2014Mh L J 321 and on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 5 11J Vs. JC 2020ALL MRto submit that the impugnedjudgment of the Family Court was liable to be set aside.6.Per contra Shri A.B.Bambal learned counsel for therespondent supported the impugned judgment. According to the learnedcounsel the Family Court rightly held that the conduct of the appellantwas such that the same resulted in causing cruelty to the respondent.Besides trying to physically cause hurt to the respondent the conduct ofthe appellant also resulted in mental cruelty. He referred to the writtenstatement filed by the appellant and submitted that there were nopleadings therein that the respondent suffered from epilepsy. This aspectwas deposed by the appellant only during the course of his evidence.Similarly the allegations that the respondent and her family membersbelonged to ‘Rajput’ community but obtained false caste certificate ofbelonging to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ community to secure employment was notproved. Making of unsubstantiated false allegations resulted in causingmental cruelty to the respondent. These aspects were rightly taken intoconsideration by the learned Judge of the Family Court and hence it wassubmitted that there was no reason to interfere with the impugnedjudgment.7.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length andwith their assistance we have perused the records of the case. The on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 6 11following point arises for consideration :Whether in the facts of the case the Family Court was justifiedin granting divorce on the ground of cruelty 8.Perusal of the pleadings of the respective parties indicate thatit is the case of the wife that the husband and his family members ill treated the wife on various occasions for no justifiable reason and that inDiwali 2010 by raising such a quarrel she was beaten and her gold articleswere taken away which resulted in the husband inflicting cruel treatmenton the wife. On the contrary according to the husband a defence ofdenial was raised besides denying the proceedings before the Mahila Cell.In addition it was alleged that the wife and her family members hadobtained false caste certificate of belonging to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ for securingemployment. In the evidence led by the parties the wife denied that shewas suffering from epilepsy and in her cross examination she stated thatshe was taking treatment for giddiness prior to her marriage. The learnedJudge of the family Court after considering the evidence on record rightlyfound that the deposition of the husband’s sister Chanda at Exhibit 51 didnot inspire confidence in view of various incorrect statements made by herin her pleadings. The statements made in her affidavit were subsequentlyadmitted by her to be incorrect and we find no reason to take a differentview of the matter. Similar observations have been made with regard tothe contradictions in the pleadings of the husband and his deposition. on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 7 11Further it is an admitted position that both the parties had appearedbefore the Mahila Cell wherein the husband had undertaken to behaveproperly with the wife after which she joined his company again. Thoughthe husband denied having given any such undertaking before the MahilaCell in his written statement it was admitted by him in his cross examination that he had in fact given such written undertaking. It is alsoseen that thereafter from February 2010 to July 2010 the parties hadresided together but the behaviour of the husband with the wife did notimprove. The learned Judge of the Family Court thus found the case of thewife more probable than that of the husband.9.It is to be seen that the husband in his affidavit at Exhibit 30specifically stated in paragraph 7 as under : “That prior to my marriage with her he was treated forepilepsy disease in the clinic of Dr. ChandrashekharMeshram and so also at I.G.M.C. Nagpur andGovernment Medical College Nagpur. I and my familymembers were kept in dark about her disease. Had itbeen disclosed to me I would not have consented forthe marriage. Thus the fraud was practiced upon me inthe matter of marriage. I came to know about herdisease on 21.07.2008 when the petitioner wasadmitted for delivery of the child in the hospital ofDr. Kala Sabu.” Further in his cross examination in paragraph 18 he stated as under:“It is true that I have not pleaded in my reply thatpetitioner is suffering from epilepsy. It is not true that Ihave falsely mentioned in my affidavit that petitioner issuffering from the epilepsy and she was under the on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 8 11treatment of Dr.Saboo and Chandrashekhar Meshram.It is not true that document produced by me are falseand those are not pertaining to the petitioner. It is nottrue that I have defamed the petitioner in her relativesand office colleagues by alleging that she is sufferingfrom epilepsy.”It thus becomes clear that in the written statement filed by thehusband there were no pleadings that the wife was suffering fromepilepsy. This was sought to be raised for the first time during the courseof his deposition. In absence of any pleading in this regard by thehusband there was no occasion for the wife to counter this allegation thatshe was suffering from epilepsy. It thus remained an allegation raised forthe first time in evidence but not proved. 10.Further in the written statement filed by the husband inparagraph 17 it was pleaded as under :“… The respondent consciously knew that the petitioner isvery much proud of her earning from the job of teacherwhich she secured somehow on the basis of spurious castecertificates of ‘Rajput Bhamta’ obtained from Amravatialthough her forefathers were residents of Nagpur and ofRajput caste but at this crucial moment of hisunemployment she is the host of his survival.” During the course of his cross examination the husband sought to justifythis allegation and admitted that he had made various complaints aboutthe aforesaid at the office where the wife was serving. The following wasstated in his cross examination :“17. …. I am having documents to show that petitioner on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 9 11has secured employment by showing herself as “Bhamta”although she is ‘Rajput’. I have not produced saiddocuments on record. It is not true that with a view todefame the petitioner I have made such statement withouthaving evidence with me. It is true that I have filedapplication with the petitioner’s office for removing herfrom service on the ground that she has securedemployment by giving false information. It is not truethat petitioner has not secured employment by showingherself as “Bhamta” and therefore no action has beeninitiated against her on the basis of myapplication complaint. It is true that I have also madecomplaint to the petitioner office alleging that she is notresiding at headquarter and therefore appropriate actionbe initiated against her.” It is also seen that the husband placed on record newspaper cuttings onthe list at Exhibit 70 to indicate that he had made various complaintsagainst the wife to her employer. It is however seen that having madesuch allegations it was necessary for the husband to have substantiatedthe same. This was not done by the husband by leading any evidence inthat regard.11.The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered theseunsubstantiated allegations and has proceeded to hold that this conduct ofthe husband caused mental cruelty to the wife. We find in the facts of thepresent case that the learned Judge of the Family Court was justified inrecording this conclusion. In K Srinivas Rao Vs. D. A. Deepa2013(5)Mh.L.J.10 it has been observed in paragraph 14 by the Hon’bleSupreme Court as under : on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 10 11“14… Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegationsagainst the spouse of his or her relatives in the pleadings filing of complaints of issuing notices or news items whichmay have adverse impact on the business prospect or thejob of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints andcases in the Court against the spouse would in the facts ofa case amount to causing mental cruelty to the otherspouse.”It thus becomes clear that making of unfounded allegationsagainst the spouse or his her relatives in the pleadings or makingcomplaints with a view to affect the job of the spouse amounts to causingmental cruelty to the said spouse. This conduct of the husband of notpleading that the wife was suffering from epilepsy and stating the samefor the first time in his deposition as well as making wild allegations thatthe wife and her relatives had secured false caste certificate withoutattempting to substantiate the said allegations has resulted in causingmental cruelty to the wife. If such allegations would have been met inaccordance with law the same could have been made by the wife. Therecould have been proper adjudication of these allegations. However itappears from the conduct of the husband that in one way or the other heintended to prejudice the service of the wife. The finding recorded by thelearned Judge of the Family Court that the behaviour and the conduct ofthe husband of making wild and unsubstantiated allegations resulted incausing mental cruelty to the wife does not deserve to be interfered with. on 10 02 2021 on 21 02 FCA70.15(j) 11 1112.The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for theappellant in Uttara Praveen Thoolis on the aspect of desertionand the acts of condoning cruelty by the other spouse. The ratio of thesaid decision cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. Similarly thedecision in ‘J’also does not assist the case of the husband. Thepoint as framed is accordingly answered by holding that the Family Courtwas justified in granting a decree for divorce to the wife on the ground ofcruelty.13.In the light of aforesaid discussion we find no merit in theFamily Court Appeal No.70 2015. The same is accordingly dismissed byaffirming the impugned judgment. The parties shall bear their own costs. JUDGE JUDGEAndurkar.. 