Absence Of "Ideal Family Relations" Doesn't Prove Allegations Of Cruelty, Courts Must Adjudicate On Facts: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that Courts can uphold the allegations of cruelty only based on proven facts and evidence. It is not for the Court to imagine ideal family or relations to determine infliction of cruelty, held the Court.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“We may stay reminded of the principle that while administering family law, Courts are not required to imagine an ideal family or ideal family relations to judge whether the act complained is one that may amount to cruelty. Unless proven facts are such as may lead the Courts to the inference that the aggrieved parties are entitled to construe the act of cruelty committed on them, the Courts may not impose their own morality or opinion as to the conduct that may have been offered by the parties in the situation in which they existed.”
Case Background
Parties got married in 2011. Respondent-husband filed for divorce in 2013 on grounds of cruelty by the appellant-wife alleging rude and quarrelsome behaviour. One incident was cited where the mother of the respondent was assaulted by the appellant and her family members. However, in the criminal case, all accused were acquitted.
The Principal Judge, Baghpat dissolved the marriage between the parties on grounds of cruelty based on the evidence that had been led by the parties. It was held that the appellant had assaulted her mother-in-law in absence of other family members of the respondent. Appellant challenged the order of the Family Court dissolving the marriage without providing any alimony.
Counsel for appellant argued that no evidence regarding the alleged assault was led by the respondent, even in the criminal trial which led to the acquittal of all accused. It was argued that the respondent could not have led any other evidence to allege cruelty at the stage of evidence unless the same was specifically pleaded in the plaint.
It was pleaded that the appellant was ready and willing to live with the respondent, however, the husband refused to revive the matrimonial relationship.
Respondent argued that failure to pass the strict test of proof in criminal trial will not affect the allegations of cruelty in divorce proceedings. It was argued that both in examination and cross-examination, the husband had highlighted the assault on his mother. It was stated that the appellant had admitted to her family members visiting the house when other family members of the respondent were away.
It was further submitted that after institution of the divorce proceedings, the appellant had lodged multiple criminal cases against the respondent. Stating that the parties had been living separately for 11 years, it was urged that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that the criminal cases for demand of dowry were only registered after the institution of divorce proceedings as they had not been mentioned in the plaint. Further, the Court noted that the cruelty alleged was only based on alleged assault on the mother of the respondent.
The Court observed that once the appellant had denied the alleged act of cruelty in her written statement, it was upon the respondent to prove the same through evidence. It was observed that the incident, not proved by the respondent through evidence, would continue to be described as “a family squabble which may never acquire the degree or status of an act of cruelty as may lead to dissolution of a Hindu marriage.”
Holding that the Courts can only determine cruelty based on the evidence led before them, the bench headed by Justice Singh observed that no amendment application was filed by the respondent to bring on record any acts of cruelty by the appellant. And therefore, the appellant never had the opportunity to rebut any alleged incidents of cruelty.
“In absence of that opportunity granted to the appellant, it never became open to the respondent to rely on such fact occurrences - by introducing them at the stage of oral evidence. In absence of those essential facts being pleaded they could never be treated as proven. In fact, the learned court below ought not to have relied on that evidence. Unless material facts had not been pleaded they may not have been in dispute; consequently, no issue may have arisen and; unless an issue had arisen, no evidence may have been led. That simple principle and flow of proceedings has been departed, without permission of law.”
The Court held that the Family Court had committed a procedural error in relying on evidence which was not pleaded in the plaint. It was held that the Family Court's observation regarding criminal prosecution by wife against the husband not per se amounting to cruelty was incorrect as if the criminal prosecution was found to be false, it would amount to cruelty. Since the criminal cases were still pending, the Court held that no observations could be made regarding the same.
Observing that the parties were not agreeable to settlement, the Court set aside the order passed by the Family Court as cruelty for dissolving the marriage between the parties was not established.
Case Title: Kavita v. Rohit Kumar [FIRST APPEAL No. - 543 of 2015]
Counsel for Appellant: Abhinav Gaur, Vibhu Rai
Counsel for Respondent: Pawan Singh Pundir, Rakesh Ojha, Sukram Pal