Minor Inconsistency In Wife's Statement During Cross Examination Before Family Court Does Not Make Her An Unreliable Witness: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that minor inconsistency in a statement made by a wife during cross-examination by husband before Family Court in divorce proceedings does not make her an unreliable witness. Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld the judgment and decree passed by a Family Court whereby a petition was filed by the wife for dissolution of Marriage...
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that minor inconsistency in a statement made by a wife during cross-examination by husband before Family Court in divorce proceedings does not make her an unreliable witness.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld the judgment and decree passed by a Family Court whereby a petition was filed by the wife for dissolution of Marriage under sec. 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed, and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.
"We do note there was indeed a minor inconsistency in the statement of the Respondent-wife during her cross examination relating to the payment of Household expenses. However, the same is a minor aberration and does not make the Respondent-wife an unreliable witness," the Court said.
The Court was also of the view that what may constitute cruelty in one matter may not constitute cruelty in another and therefore, each case and relationship must be viewed separately and its own totality.
Further noting that the matrimonial disputes between a husband and a wife are incapable of following strict parameters of evidence, the Court said that in cases where there are allegations of cruelty, especially mental cruelty, there can be no set parameters that the court can follow.
"Matrimonial issues are generally confined to the bedroom and the matrimonial home, away from public eye and gaze. A lot of times these cases do not have any independent or impartial witnesses. The doctrine of preponderance of probabilities has to be applied while evaluating the evidence, and the court must decide the matter based on the overall picture that emerges from the undisputed and uncontroverted facts and circumstances, and those established by documentary or other evidence," the Court added.
The wife had filed the divorce petition in the Family Court claiming that the couple did not consummate their marriage and that there were dowry demands by the husband and his family members. She also alleged that the husband fought with her constantly, including allegations of torture. She added that the husband was suffering from a Bi-Polar disorder which he concealed from her before marriage.
The Family Court had then held that the husband subjected the wife to continuous ill-treatment and that his acts or incidents would constitute mental cruelty, which was a ground for divorce under sec. 13(1)(ia)of Hindu Marriage Act.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the husband had challenged the order in the High Court.
The High Court rejected the husband's allegation that the wife was an unreliable witness observing that cross-examination did not show that she faltered or could not withstand the same.
The Court also opined that no specific contradictions were brought forth by the husband, in the testimony of the wife, to support his submissions that she was not a truthful and reliable witness.
"It is a well settled proposition that pleadings and evidence have to be read as a whole and no single instance can be picked and read in isolation. The impugned judgment in above paragraph, has noted that there are factual instances found in the evidence, which are not pleaded in pleadings. However, those incidents are not the fulcrum of the findings of the Family Court that the Respondent has been subject to mental and physical cruelty by the Appellant," the Court observed.
The Court was also of the view that numerous complaints and specific incidents of cruelty, both mental and physical, showed the true conduct of the husband, which could not be expected in any healthy matrimonial relationship.
"Inconsistencies of such a minor nature neither change the thread, nor the essence of the judgment. The contradictions pointed out by the Appellant are not so serious as to change the finding, persuading us to set aside the impugned judgment, nor are they so grave that they violate the principles of natural justice," the Court said.
Further observing that the marriage was beyond repair and continuity of the same was fruitless, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Title: RAHUL KESARWANI v. SUNITA BHUYAN