Borrowing Money On Interest Without Informing Husband, Stealing Ornaments And Valuables,Levelling Allegations Against Him Etc. Amount To Cruelty: U'khand HC [Read Order]

In the said Judgement, the suit of the plaintiff-husband (respondent herein) for dissolution of marriage was decreed by the Family Court.

A division bench comprising Justices Narayan Singh Dhanik and Ravi Malimath dismissed the said appeal noting that the wife, without informing her spouse, borrowed money on interest from many persons made purchases on credit, used to steal ornaments and valuables from her own house and levelled so many allegations against her spouse which she failed to substantiate.

Notably, when the money was not paid, the lenders, who were gangsters, started threatening the Husband who had to ultimately wind up his business in Mumbai and return to Dehradun.

The background of the case

The marriage of Rajesh Gaur (plaintiff-respondent) was solemnized with Anita Gaur (defendant-appellant) on 12.5.1999 as per Hindu customs and ceremonies. Immediately after the marriage, the couple shifted to Mumbai where the plaintiff-respondent was running his business.

On 3.6.2014, husband (plaintiff-respondent) instituted a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the wife (defendant-appellant) seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

In his plaint, it was alleged by the husband that about five years ago, there came a sudden change in the behaviour of her wife and the valuable articles, jewellery, cash etc. started missing from the house.

It was alleged by him that 2-3 years thereafter, he started receiving telephone calls of crooked persons asking him either to return the money else he would be abducted.

On being asked, his wife informed him that she had borrowed money on interest @ 10 per cent per month and she had also purchased ornaments and clothes on credit.

The wife started quarrelling with the husband and she also threatened that she would get him abducted. Also, those who had lent money started chasing the husband and also threatened to capture his flat.

Apprehending the threat to his life and liberty, the plaintiff-respondent along with his wife (defendant-appellant) returned to Dehradun on 11.12.2013, thereafter, a Panchayat was held in the village in which the defendant-appellant had admitted her mistakes.

On the other hand, the defendant-appellant (the Wife) contested the suit by way of filing the written statement, wherein she denied the allegations of the plaintiff-respondent.

However, she admitted that she had borrowed money amounting to approximately rupees ten lakhs on interest as the plaintiff-respondent had stopped giving money for household expenses.

She submitted that she was being badly harassed by the plaintiff-respondent; and that she made a complaint in the Women Cell and also lodged a case under Section 494 IPC against the plaintiff-respondent.

The Court below, after examining the evidence, decreed the suit for divorce holding that the reasons stated for instituting the suit and the acts alleged by the plaintiff against his wife does come under the category of cruelty.

The observation of the High Court

The High Court took note of the fact that the word 'Cruelty' has not been defined under the Act, and that the same could be physical or mental.

In this context, the court remarked,

"In the matrimonial life, cruelty may be of unfounded variety. But before the conduct called cruelty, it must touch the certain pitch of severity and conduct should be such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It should be wilful and unjustifiable conduct. The enquiry, therefore, has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character or not?" (emphasis supplied)

The court relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

In fact, the wife had alleged that her husband was a characterless person and he had illicit extra-marital relations with another woman and subsequently, he married to yet another woman.

[Note: The Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur v. Manjeet Singh (Dead), 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1069 , has held that bald allegations of illegitimate relationship made by a husband against the wife amounts to mental cruelty.]

Further, the court in the present matter observed that all these were unfounded allegations against the plaintiff-respondent (the Husband).

Consequently, the bench said,

"All these acts and conduct, in our considered view, constitute cruelty. Further, as is evident, it was not a solitary instance of cruelty on the part of the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant indulged in repeated acts of cruelty and misbehaviour with her husband.

Apart from this, the court also remarked,

"Moreover, the conduct of the defendant-appellant also caused danger to the life, limb or health of the plaintiff-respondent and there was reasonable apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff-respondent that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the defendant-appellant."

The bench was of the view that Marriage, like every other human relationship – perhaps more so than others – is based on mutual trust, confidence and mutual respect.

The court further observed that, while differences may exist - oftentimes serious ones - as long as respect for each other remains, the marital bond will survive.

In this context, the bench said,

"The above acts on the part of the defendant-appellant (wife) and levelling unfounded allegations about her spouse constituted actionable mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act."

It may be noted that in the year 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court had allowed a wife's plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty, noting that the husband had repeatedly taken loans on the wife's name knowing well that she had no source of income, and had failed to repay them, putting her in trouble.

Case Details:

Case Title: Smt. Anita Gaur v. Sri Rajesh Gaur

Case No.: First Appeal No. 115/2016

Quorum: Justices Narayan Singh Dhanik and Ravi Malimath

Appearance: Advocate Kaushal Sah Jagati (for the defendant-appellant/Wife); Advocate B.D. Pande (for the plaintiff-respondent/Husband).

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]