Waiver to get divorce within 1 year of marriage

Delhi High Court
Sh. Tarun Kumar Vaish vs Ms. Meenakshi Vaish

on 13/4/2005

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This petition under Article 227 under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenges the Order dated 27th July, 2004,
passed by the Additional District Judge in HMA. No. 591 of 2004, by
which an application moved by which an application moved on 13th July,
2004 by both the parties, that is, the petitioner, Sh. Tarun Kumar
Vaish and the respondent, Ms. Meenakshi Vaish, seeking permission to
present the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955(in short the `HMA’) for divorce, by mutual consent prior to the
expiry of one year from the date of marriage of the parties, that is,
30th April, 2004 was rejected and accordingly the petition under
Section 13B of the HMA Act was dismissed.

3. The relevant portion of the proviso to Section 14 of the HMA reads
as follows:-

“14(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not
be competent for any court to entertain any petition for dissolution
of a marriage by a decree of divorce, [unless at the date of the
presentation of the petition one year has elapsed since the date of
the marriage :

Provided that the Court may, upon application made to it in
accordance with such rules as may be made by the High Court in that
behalf, allow a petition to be presented [before one year has
elapsed] since the date of the marriage on the ground that the case
is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional
depravity on the part of the respondent, but if it appears to the
Court at the hearing of the petition that the petitioner obtained
leave to present the petition by any misrepresentation or
concealment of the nature of the case, the court may, if it
pronounces a decree, do so subject to the condition that the decree
shall not have effect until after the [expiry of one year] from the
date of the marriage or may dismiss the petition without prejudice
to any petition which may be brought after the [expiration of the
said one year] upon the same or substantially the same facts as
those alleged in support of the petition so dismissed.”

4. Both the parties have contended that their plea for exemption from
waiting for one year under proviso under Section 14(1) of the Act
should have been granted since the parties have been living separately
since 14th May, 2005 and the marriage has not even been consummated. It
has further been contended that the parties have irreconcilable
differences between them and that they will suffer mental as well as
physical hardship on account of the continuation of their marriage. It
has also been submitted that the families of both the parties have
already initiated the process of re-marrying them.

5. On these grounds, the exemption for presenting the petition under
Section 13(B)(1) of the Act prior to the one year from the date of the
marriage, that is, 30th April, 2004 was sought. The impugned Order
dated 27th July, 2004 has noted that the exceptional hardship has not
been explained by the parties and as such the petition was dismissed on
the ground that it was premature and that there was no justification to
waive the statutory period of one year.

6. In my view, the parties have given sufficient indication of the
hardships for seeking exemption for expiry of one year in their
petition before the Additional District Judge.

7. This Court also in a judgment in FAO 756 of 2003 in Pooja Gupta and
Anr. v. Nil in respect of a petition under Section 13B(1) of the Act
had held as follows:

“The above statement of objects and reasons though made in the
context of parity with Section 28 of Special Marriage Act also
clearly indicates that the legislative intent was expeditious
disposal of divorces by mutual consent. In my view as long a the
Court is satisfied as an essential reason for exemption for filing a
divorce by mutual consent prior to expiry of one year after the
marriage that the plea for mutual consent is not under
coercion/intimidation or undue influence and there are no chances of
reconciliation and the parties have fully understood the impact and
effect of the divorce by mutual consent, the continuance of such a
marriage is bound to cause undue hardship to the spouses. The other
relevant considerations which may be considered for granting the
exemption from passage of one year before filing a petition for
divorce by mutual consent are:-

a) the maturity and the comprehension of the spouses;

(b) absence of coercion/intimidation/undue influence;

(c) the duration of the marriage sought to be dissolved;

(d) absence of any possibility of reconciliation;

(e) lack of frivolity;

(f) lack of misrepresentation or concealment

(g) the age of the spouses and the deleterious effect of the
continuance of a sterile marriage on the prospects of re-marriage of
the parties.

8. I have ascertained the resolve to dissolve the marriage from both
the parties as well as from the elder sister of the respondent, present
in Court today, who agree and reiterate that it would be appropriate
and indeed desirable and essential if the divorce by mutual consent is
granted. On my personal examination of the parties, I am satisfied that
the decision is not influenced by any external factor. Both the parties
are aged 33 and 26 years respectively. They both appear to be matured,
independent and fully committed even after a passage of about 8 months
from the date of filing of the petition to part company. Thus, even
after a passage of about 11 months from the date of the marriage, the
parties are firm in their resolve to dissolve the marriage. Thus it is
not a hasty decision to seek a divorce but the decision is a mature and
a well considered one and has not been arrived at under any external
influence.

9. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the Order
dated 27th July, 2004 is set aside. The claim for exemption from
waiting from one year on the facts of the present case, therefore
justified. Accordingly, the permission to file the petition under
Section 13(B) of the HMA on 13th July, 2004 was justified in view of
the exceptional hardship explained by the parties, in the present
petition. The petition under Section 13(B)(1) of the Act which was
filed on 13th July, 2004 is accordingly allowed and the marriage
solemnized between the parties, that is, Tarun Kumar Vaish and
Meenakshi Vaish on 30th April, 2004 is dissolved by a decree under
Section 13(B)(1) of the Act with effect from 18th, April 2005.

10. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. Office to draw up the decree accordingly.

Anna Ready to Support Non-BJP, Non-Cong Front

In a statement that can add more controversy to the ongoing anti-corruption movement, Anna Hazare said he is ready to support and campaign for any political outfit that is corruption-free and belongs to the non-Congress and non-BJP front. In an exclusive interview with Rajdeep Sardesai, Editor-in-Chief of IBN18, Anna said that the movement will be restarted if the demands on the Jan Lokpal Bill are not met by Parliament's Standing Committee.

He said the movement is against those who block the Bill and is not anti-parliament in any form.

Anna also categorically cleared the point that the movement will not support the BJP Yatra and said, BJP can support the anti-corruption movement by appointing Lokayukta in their states.

While showering praises for Indira Gandhi, Anna said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is remote controlled who lacks authority and nobody listens to him in his team.

Planning to go aggressive with his campaign, he said "we will sing bhajans outside their houses. I will go to their constituencies and tell people not to vote for them."

Anna's To-Do List

Anna Hazare, whose fast pushed through the Jan Lokpal Bill, is not tired yet. He assured many more fights in the coming days. Though his declining health showed some sign of weariness among the supporters, the 75-year-old Anna is not ready to give up at any cost.

The youth who participated in the Jan Lokpal Movement are in full spirit asking "What do we do next?" and they are appealed not to tolerate corruption in any way.

Team Anna is now ready to take the Jan Lokpal agitation further by undertaking yatras and referendum to certify that the people are acquainted with their elected representatives' performance and their poise on the Jan Lokpal Bill. He feels that these steps can assure that people hold the MPs answerable. The team Anna is ready to take action against people who made wrong allegations against the movement and tried to defame the committee members. Asking an apology from them, Prashant Bhushan said, "Some newspapers and magazines have published articles that defame the core committee members, and are misguiding people. Digvijay Singh has been saying that the Jan Lokpal Movement is backed by the RSS. We will serve defamation notice on such people and ask for an apology. " Bhuwar Singh Meghvanshi, associated with Aruna Roy's organisation Majdur Kisan Shakti Sangathan, will be sent a notice for fingering another member of the committee, Arvind Kejriwal's father.

Hazare will take an active part in the yatra with other members and he says, "I will myself undertake propaganda against the MPs who are against the Bill in the yatra. I am not afraid of anything." Team Anna will soon be appointing committee of three-retired judges of Supreme Court and the High Court to investigate corruption cases against its members and the movement. Team Anna aims at uniting all the other organizations in their movement.

The anti-corruption protest has brought a wide awakening among the Indians. People are ready to go to any extent to show their support for Anna and against the corruption. The "Main Anna Hoon" or "I Am Anna" caps are now the latest accessory among the Indians.

Kiran Bedi came up with this innovative thought of wearing the "I Am Anna "cap when asked for bribe. Bedi is all charged up with enthusiasm and said, "All of you who are wearing the Anna cap, I suggest that you should carry this with you to uproot corruption from your lives. Every time an official asks you for bribe, just wear the Anna cap to put across your message," Recently an accused in 2008 cash-for-vote scam appeared in Delhi court wearing a Gandhian cap written "Main Anna Hoon"

The fight for better India does not only end with Jan Lokpal Bill. Hazare's next focus will be towards the rising suicidal activities among the farmers. He wants the education system to be corruption free so that the farmer's children can pay money and get themselves admitted to schools and colleges. Anna feels, "There is a big chain of corruption and we have to break that. We will bring a change in the country," says Anna. Anna calls people of India his own family and said, 'I might not have a family but all you people are my family and together we can do lot of things. We have to fight for true independence and a real republic."

Anna's To-Do List

Anna Hazare, whose fast pushed through the Jan Lokpal Bill, is not tired yet. He assured many more fights in the coming days. Though his declining health showed some sign of weariness among the supporters, the 75-year-old Anna is not ready to give up at any cost.

The youth who participated in the Jan Lokpal Movement are in full spirit asking "What do we do next?" and they are appealed not to tolerate corruption in any way.

Team Anna is now ready to take the Jan Lokpal agitation further by undertaking yatras and referendum to certify that the people are acquainted with their elected representatives' performance and their poise on the Jan Lokpal Bill. He feels that these steps can assure that people hold the MPs answerable. The team Anna is ready to take action against people who made wrong allegations against the movement and tried to defame the committee members. Asking an apology from them, Prashant Bhushan said, "Some newspapers and magazines have published articles that defame the core committee members, and are misguiding people. Digvijay Singh has been saying that the Jan Lokpal Movement is backed by the RSS. We will serve defamation notice on such people and ask for an apology. " Bhuwar Singh Meghvanshi, associated with Aruna Roy's organisation Majdur Kisan Shakti Sangathan, will be sent a notice for fingering another member of the committee, Arvind Kejriwal's father.

Hazare will take an active part in the yatra with other members and he says, "I will myself undertake propaganda against the MPs who are against the Bill in the yatra. I am not afraid of anything." Team Anna will soon be appointing committee of three-retired judges of Supreme Court and the High Court to investigate corruption cases against its members and the movement. Team Anna aims at uniting all the other organizations in their movement.

The anti-corruption protest has brought a wide awakening among the Indians. People are ready to go to any extent to show their support for Anna and against the corruption. The "Main Anna Hoon" or "I Am Anna" caps are now the latest accessory among the Indians.

Kiran Bedi came up with this innovative thought of wearing the "I Am Anna "cap when asked for bribe. Bedi is all charged up with enthusiasm and said, "All of you who are wearing the Anna cap, I suggest that you should carry this with you to uproot corruption from your lives. Every time an official asks you for bribe, just wear the Anna cap to put across your message," Recently an accused in 2008 cash-for-vote scam appeared in Delhi court wearing a Gandhian cap written "Main Anna Hoon"

The fight for better India does not only end with Jan Lokpal Bill. Hazare's next focus will be towards the rising suicidal activities among the farmers. He wants the education system to be corruption free so that the farmer's children can pay money and get themselves admitted to schools and colleges. Anna feels, "There is a big chain of corruption and we have to break that. We will bring a change in the country," says Anna. Anna calls people of India his own family and said, 'I might not have a family but all you people are my family and together we can do lot of things. We have to fight for true independence and a real republic."

Who Says Women are Not Corrupt?

May be it's the concept of 'Bharatiya Nari' that often stops us from associating women to burning issues like corruption. May be its ironical to boast of the fact that we still stick on to such a value system today. However, it's those male figures, as always, figure out mostly when we say corruption and the public anger is mechanically directed towards our male netas. Contrary to the common belief, women in power could never make any significant change. Right from the era of tyrannical Indira Gandhi who was accused of electoral corruption, to the modern women politicians, there are many carrying the bundle of corruption on them.

She flies a private jet to Mumbai when she needs sandals. The rich and famous, Mayawati is undoubtedly the most controversial women in Indian politics. She has been charged in a series of cases including disproportionate assets and Taj Corridor case etc.

The self-proclaimed face of the poorest of the state's poor Dalits who came to power on the call of 'sarvajan hitaye' (for the benefit of all) has always getting richer and richer. Her net worth in 2010 was at 87 crore, an increase of at least Rs 35 crore in three years' time. Besides these, she owns properties in different parts of the country, the cumulative cost of which is valued around 73 crore. The Dalit queen has been fighting many legal battles over cases relating to the Taj corridor case, diamond-laden lavish birthday parties, disproportionate assets case and spend large sums of money on building statues of herself. The UP Chief Minister has been exposed by WikiLeaks to have a "penchant for corruption".

In the long legal battle, Supreme Court asked the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha to appear personally before a Karnataka trial court for a case against dealing with her disproportionate assets. There are several other cases against the actress-turned politician on charges involving embezzlement and monetary fraud. In 2011, Jayalalitha was convicted for criminal breach of trust and for illegally acquiring governmental property belonging to TANSI, a state-run agency. Later in 2003, she was acquitted in same case due to lack of evidence. Of the 11 corruption cases levied against her in period 1996-2003, she was acquitted in 9.

Rabri Devi, whose only experience was home and kitchen, was chosen to take up the post of Chief Minister of Bihar when her husband Lalu Prasad Yadav was forced to resign on corruption charges. She too also has several cases for amassing wealth disproportionate to her income. In an obvious result, she lost election for both Raghopur and Sonepur assembly seats last year.

The wide spreading corruption cancer is very much in-built in our political system regardless of the gender. The new-generation wakeup call is getting its momentum and Anna Hazare movement is the only beacon of hope. While women empowerment is a much talked about issue, it's disheartening to see that many women of whom a lot is expected, fail to deliver their promises and guards the houses of corruption.

Kanimozhi is the latest in the series of women politicians accused of corruption charges. The jailed daughter of DMK Chief M Karunanidhi has been in Tihar Prisons since May 2011 in connection with the 2G spectrum scam, in which she is alleged to be co-conspirator. Out of his three fives and six children, Kanimozhi has been the favorite child of Karunanidhi and has been the urban face of the party. Basically a poet and journalist, her political career that began in 2007 after being elected to the Rajya Sabha had taken a slow and steady course. It was, of course, a transition period from what is labeled as her father's literary legacy to his political legacy. Her political future plunged into darkness ever since the 2G scam was out to the public. CBI charge sheeted Kanimozhi in the historical corruption scandal for her role in accepting 214-crore kickback for Kalaignar TV in which she owns a 20 percent stake. She was arrested and sent to jail on 20 May, 2011 after her bail plea was rejected

Divorce Rate High Among Indian Techies

Techies are known to solve the toughest problems in the computer world using complex algorithms, but when it comes to marriage the smallest problem takes a toll on them. The pressures of the modern workplace has made a bigger difference in the lifestyle of techies.
India still has one of the lowest divorce rates in the world, with about one in 1,000 marriages collapsing, according to recent studies.

But the courts are now seeing so many new cases that the government has proposed making divorce easier and faster, in line with other countries.

"There has been a huge change, a drastic change and divorce rates are increasing," Dr Geetanjali Sharma, a marriage counsellor working in Gurgaon, a wealthy Delhi satellite city, told the BBC.

"There's been a 100 percent increase in divorce rates in the past five years alone.They don't want to put more efforts into a relationship to fix the issues."

Most of those splitting up are members of India's thriving, urban middle class whose lives have been transformed by India's boom, and whose aspirations are radically different to those of their parents and grandparents.

The pressures of the modern workplace make a bigger difference, she thinks, than whether it was a traditional arranged marriage, or a so-called "love marriage".

"I feel people are concentrating more on the careers and less on their personal lives," she said.

"I also feel they lack patience and tolerance. They don't want to put more efforts into a relationship to fix the issues, and they feel that escapism is the solution."

The divorce rates in Kerala are going up. In 2009-10, the number of divorce cases numbered 11,600, with the majority being from the IT industry. "The situation is disturbing," says Rajiv Menon (name changed), a senior legal practitioner, who works at the Family Court, Kochi. "Most couples who work in the IT industry break up within two to three years of marriage." Rajiv puts it down to the odd working hours, usually at night, the high stress of the job, and an egoistic attitude. "The spouses adopt an attitude of superiority to each other," he says. "There is also a lack of communication which causes many misunderstandings."

Meanwhile, Antony gives other reasons. "When they first join the industry, youngsters get swayed by the high incomes," says Antony. "Many of them take to drinks, drugs, late night parties and watching porn on the internet." Inevitably, the youngsters lose their equilibrium. "There is a widespread prevalence of pre-marital sex," says Antony. "They have been influenced by the serials on TV which glorify pre- and extra-marital sex in order to garner good ratings."
IT professionals in troubled marriages are hacking into their spouse's email account for proof of extramarital affair or salary, say lawyers and cyber experts.

Cyber experts say a growing number of cases have come to light where couples are hacking into each other's email accounts to collect evidence for divorce. And some are going a step further by fabricating electronic evidence for early separation reports NDTV
Lawyers also claim that couples on the verge of separation are increasingly resorting to hacking techniques to score on each other.
"No good lawyer would advise the litigants to hack into each other's accounts, but we are coming across many litigants who come to us already in possession of sheets of conversation wherein it becomes clear that the other person is having a relationship outside of marriage that goes beyond mere friendship," said Advocate Ajit Kulkarni.

According to lawyers in the city, 30 percent of all divorces that happen in the city every year are among couples working in the IT sector, and 50 percent of them use hacking techniques to collect electronic evidence against each other.

"Gen Next relies on the Internet for almost everything it does, right from online banking to shopping, so when it is time to gather electronic evidence there are growing cases where in couples are also relying on Internet," said Advocate Abhay Apte.

Advocate Pratibha Ghorpade said, "In many cases people meet on social networking sites and choose to marry without checking each other's background, and when it is time for separation they once again resort to the Internet and submit sheets of conversations between their spouse and the man or the woman who has allegedly jeopardised the marriage."

Why More Entrepreneurs are Getting Divorced?

Experts often say that the divorce rate reaches as high as 41 percent at times. Divorce not only ends the relationship but also changes the entire perspective of living of two individuals. In the U.S. almost 49 percent of the marriages end up in divorces and 60 percent of all divorces are related to individuals aged 25 to 39. Are not the emerging entrepreneurs falling into this age category? When a married couple that owns a business goes through divorce, it puts a massive strain on the business.

Being an entrepreneur requires to be self, whereas marriage means merger of two different individualities to one. On the other hand, running a family business may bring strain on a marriage. An entrepreneur generally is a person who is highly motivated, creative, focused and always ready to risk everything for what they believe in. Some entrepreneurs have adrenaline rush of creating, business deals and living on the edge. While these may be wonderful qualities for being an entrepreneur, it brings in stress in the personal relationship.
Some of the common causes of divorce of entrepreneurs in most cases are financial strain, negligence, lack of communication and understanding, and divergent goals. As a spouse, the partner always wants security rather than risk unveiling all the time.

When compared to other professions, who are not preoccupied with their professional thoughts all the time and neither bring in so much of security concern for the spouse. However, when it comes to an entrepreneur, his day and night, thoughts and dreams are all preoccupied with business thoughts, their personal life and time does not remain personal, which creates a sense of unprotectiveness and death of feeling for the partner.

On the other hand, some of the male counterpart whose wife either runs a business or is an emerging entrepreneur complains about their being so professional and earning more than they are. They cannot see their spouse wearing a pant at the home and taking care of all the financial responsibility of the family. This is not a valid reason for divorce, but what can man do about their "EGO". With divorce, not only does a relationship come to an end, but even those businesses which the couple co-founded putting their heart and soul together.
In the due course of building and running a business, an entrepreneur unknowingly develops traits like bossiness, self-importance and impatience, which is carried forward to his personal life too. This creates a gap of understanding and sweetness of the relationship certainly ends in due course of time resulting in divorce.

The survival of such relationship depends on a better understanding in terms of both the partners. Neither should one strain the other with so much of risk factors, nor should the spouse doubt in every step taken by their partner in regards to business.

The Locked-Up Politicians

Its jail time for Amar Singh, the politician who always enjoyed the limelight for various reasons from his close bonds with Ambanis and Bachchans to the cash-for-votes scam that questioned the value of democracy. He is the latest one in the band of politicians spending days counting the bars at the Tihar jail. The high profile jail has felt the presence of many big shots lately including 2G-scam accused A Raja and Kanimozhi as well as former CWG chairman Suresh Kalmadi. Here is a list of top politicians who are in jail for some of the recent scams that rocked the Indian politics.

Amar Singh

The political heavyweight from Uttar Pradesh has been a prominent voice in the Indian parliament over a decade now. Beyond politics, he has a special affection for Bollywood where he called its Godfather Amitabh Bachchan his brother and was linked to many actresses including Jaya Prada. He was often seen in the company of Bollywood stars and corporate honchos. In a leaked tape that Singh claimed is bogus, his close friend and Chairperson of Reliance ADAG Anil Ambani allegedly offered him 20-25 crore to fix a deal. He was quick in making friends and foes in politics and on many occasions, his political friends turned to be bitter rivals and vice versa. In a major setback, Singh was charge sheeted in the ash-for-votes scandal in 2008. It was alleged that he conspired and masterminded the scam when the UPA government was facing a floor test in Parliament after the Left Front pulled off from the collision due to difference over the U.S.-India nuclear deal. The day has come now for Amar Singh as the Special judge rejected his interim bail plea and sent him to judicial custody in Tihar jail.

A Raja

Said to be the mother of all scams, 2G spectrum scandal had A Raja at its center from the beginning. The whole deal of issuing 1232 2G spectrum licenses to 85 companies at a price set in the year 2001 by the UPA alliance was in the shadow of doubt from its beginning. The CAG report on the scam reveals that it caused a loss of 1.76-lakh crore to the exchequer. The report which termed allocation deal as arbitrary, unfair and inequitable held the then telecom minister Raja responsible for the sale of 2G spectrum and the huge revenue loss. It was revealed that the minster had personally signed and approved the majority of the questionable allocations. Raja was arrested on February 2, 2011 and later sent to Tihar Jail for judicial custody. CBI and Enforcement Directorate estimate that Raja could have made as much as 3,000 crore from the alleged bribes.

M. K. Kanimozhi

Out of his three fives and six children, Kanimozhi has been the favorite child of DMK Chief M Karunanidhi and has been the urban face of the party. Basically a poet and journalist, her political career that began in 2007 after being elected to the Rajya Sabha had taken a slow and steady course. It was, of course, a transition period from what is labeled as her father’s literary legacy to his political legacy. Her political future plunged into darkness ever since the 2G scam was out to the public. CBI charge sheeted Kanimozhi in the historical corruption scandal for her role in accepting 214-crore kickback for Kalaignar TV in which she owns a 20 percent stake. She was arrested and sent to Tihar Prisons on 20 May, 2011 after her bail plea was rejected.

Suresh Kalmadi

The fact that Suresh Kalmadi enjoyed the chair of the Presidents of the Indian Olympic Association for 16 years, is more than sufficient to explain his stranglehold in the top levels. He was invited by Sanjay Gandhi to join the Congress party when he was running a fast food shop after a premature discharge from the Indian Air Force. Over the years, Kalmadi become a prominent personality in India's political and sporting arenas, so did controversies never left him. From the inefficient management of IOA to the recent CWG scam, he has always been in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. The 2010 Commonwealth Games was a decisive event in his life as it granted him jail for the alleged mismanagement of funds. Grave financial misappropriations in awarding contracts related to CWG have reportedly caused 230 crore loss to the national exchequer. The business-turned-politician was arrested on April 25, 2011 and is spending his days at the Tihar jail.

Husband gets Divorce for False Cri. Case 498a and 125 Crpc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No. M-204 of 1998

Date of decision: 27.08.2009

Rishi Pal….Appellant
versus
Luxmi Devi and another….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present: – Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

VINOD K. SHARMA, J.

This appeal by the appellant-husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1998, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, vide which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been ordered to be dismissed.

The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the pleadings, that the parties were married according to Hindu rites on 18.4.1984 at village Malakpur Bangar. Out of the wedlock, one daughter, who was aged about 12 years on the date of presentation of the petition, was born, and living with the appellant. In the year 1992, the relations between the parties got strained, as the respondent-wife started going to her parents’ house very often unnecessarily and sometime even without the permission of the appellant. The appellant got suspicious and in the middle of September, 1992, when the respondent was at her parental home, the appellant also went there and he came to know that she was in the house of respondent No. 2, and he found them in a compromising position. In spite of having been caught, she did not desist from her activities and continued going to her parental home and reside there with respondent No. 2. He alleged that respondent-wife was leading adulterous life. It was further the case of the appellant, that after the appellant told the parents of the respondent-wife about her illicit relations with respondent No. 2, she started hating the appellant and in spite of best efforts, she could not be brought back to matrimonial home. It was pleaded that the respondent- wife had deserted the appellant-husband.

The respondent-wife also filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against the appellant, in which he was acquitted. The respondent-wife also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. On notice, both the respondents controverted the case set up by the appellant. It was claimed by the respondent-wife, that a sum of Rs.1.00 lac was spent on the marriage. She denied the allegations levelled in the petition. It was claimed, that the appellant was a drunkard and used to pick up quarrels with her on very petty matters. It was the appellant, who made her life hell. She denied having gone to her parental house very often in the year 1992. She also denied the allegations of adultery. It was alleged that the appellant made a demand of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), her father brought a panchayat and paid Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the appellant and the appellant agreed to keep the respondent-wife with him. But she was again turned out of the house after 20 days of stay at matrimonial home. The case set up in defence was, that the appellant was not happy with the respondent-wife, as she could not give birth to a male child. The allegations of desertion were denied. She, however, admitted having filed the complaint under Section 498-A IPC against the appellant. It was pleaded by the respondent-wife that brotherhood intervened and the matter was got compromised. As already observed above, other allegations were denied. Respondent No. 2 also denied the allegation of adultery.

The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, decided issues of adultery and desertion against the appellant. The learned Court also found the allegations of cruelty to be false and issue of cruelty was also decided against the appellant.

On the question of adultery, the learned Court held that as per pleadings and the evidence, the appellant condoned the act of adultery, furthermore, there was variance in the pleadings and proof on this aspect, therefore, the statement of appellant was not believed. The learned Matrimonial Court on the question of desertion found, that it was the appellant, who was at fault. The learned Court also did not believe the letter on which the reliance was placed to prove the desertion.

The learned Matrimonial Court on the question of cruelty held, that the respondent-wife had not supported the prosecution case, because of intervention of the panchayat, therefore, allegations of false prosecution were not proved.

This finding of the learned Matrimonial Court cannot be upheld. It may be noticed, that it is the admitted case, that a criminal case was filed against the appellant, which resulted in his acquittal. It is also proved on record, that the parties did not live together thereafter. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had not supported the case because of settlement between the parties. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi, AIR 2006 Punjab and Haryana 59 has been pleased to hold, that when wife makes a complaint and the allegations levelled by wife are found to be false then the wife would be guilty of false prosecution against the husband, which amounts to cruelty. It is well settled law, that filing of false criminal case against the spouse is an act of cruelty, on the basis of which the spouse suffering, is entitled to decree of divorce. It is also not in dispute and proved on record, that the respondent-wife is living at her parental home, leaving the minor daughter in custody of her husband. This conduct of the respondent- wife also amounts to mental as well as physical cruelty, as it hampers his performance of duty, as held by this Court in Balbir Kaur Vs. Daljit Singh, 1997(2) RCR (Civil) 121 and Raj (Smt.) Vs. Dalbir Singh, 1997 (2) All India Hindu Law Reporter 82. This Court in case of Raj (Smt.) Vs. Dalbir Singh (supra) has laid down as under: – “5. Having heard counsel for the respondent who took me through the evidence on the record, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court are unassailable and that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. The husband in his petition has alleged that the appellant was a short tempered lady and was constantly misbehaving with him and his family members. He did not plead any instance of misbehavior in his petition nor did he lead any evidence in this regard. The general plea that the wife was constantly misbehaving is rather vague and not sufficient to hold that the husband was treated with cruelty. In regard to the plea of desertion, the wife herself while appearing as RW1 stated that she had been thrown out of the house after being beaten. She did not state in her examination-in-chief that the husband or his family members ever asked for dowry. Apart from her statement, there is no evidence on the record to show that she was thrown out of the house as alleged by her. Surprisingly, while leaving for her parents house, she left behind a female child who has been brought up by the father. On the other hand, the husband stepped into the witness box as PW1 and stated that the wife had deserted him without sufficient cause and that he took panchayats to her parents house for bringing her back but she refused to come back with him. His version has been supported by other witnesses as well. The trial Court was right in holding that the appellant had deserted her husband without any sufficient cause. According to the wife, she had left the house about four years before the filing of the petition. Consequently, the findings recorded by the trial court are affirmed. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.” Therefore, even if the ground of desertion and adultery is not proved, still on proved facts, the appellant was entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

This appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Matrimonial Court is set aside and the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed, but with no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.

(Vinod K. Sharma)

Judge

RTI – Chandigarh Police Circular – Prosecute u/s 182 for false complaints

Circular No: No:- 28471-91/UT/E-6, dated 26-09-07

CIRCULAR

It has been observed that public complainants marked for enquiry to the DSP/SHO/Incharge PPs the enquiry is not conducted properly and aggrieved person is not given justice. The following steps be taken for conducting enquiry into complaints:-

1. When starting to write report of enquiry, the receipt no. and date of complaint and brief of allegations leveled in the complaint be mentioned.

2. The report should be sent within the prescribed time. If enquiry could not be completed within the prescribed time, an interim report should be sent for getting extra time. The prescribed time for enquiry of general complaints is 15 days. In date bound complaints received through hon’ble high court, NHRC, SC/ST Commission, Administrator etc.
enquiry report be submitted within one week to enable the office to send the report to the asking authorities in time.

3. The enquiry into the complaint should be made by visiting the spot as far as possible as correct position can be ascertained at the spot and justice can be done. Moreover by visiting spot the public is also not harassed.

4. If the complainant or the alleged person did not join the enquiry, efforts be made to join them in the enquiry thrice as per law, by sending proper notice u/s 160 CrPC and reasonable time. If the complainant fails to join the enquiry the report be submitted.

5. During enquiry statements of complainant and other material witnesses be recorded and documentary evidence collected. The version of alleged persons be also recorded and evidence collected at the spot. A certificate be also obtained from both the parties that they can not produce any other witness or proof.

6. Whenever statement of illiterate person is recorded his/her thumb impression be get on the statement with remark “ read over and admitted to be correct” and signature of one of his/her accomplice who can read and write be also obtained on the statement as witness.

7. Enquiry officer after completion of enquiry should prepare factual report on the basis of evidence brought on record.

8. The brief of statement of complainant, alleged persons and witnesses be mentioned in the report.

9. In case the allegations made in the complaint are found incorrect, the enquiry officer after applying his/her mind should clearly submit report after reaching conclusion.

10. It has been observed that in complaints relating to property dispute,money transaction, matrimonial dispute etc. beside the allegation of property dispute, money transaction, matrimonial dispute some other points are also mentioned specifically of fraud, cheating, forgery,violence etc. but the enquiry officer without going through into such specific allegation, terming these as writing stereotype words like civil matter/matrimonial dispute/money transaction and recommend to file the complaint. Specific allegation mentioned in the complaint should be looked into minutely during enquiry and the tendency of recommending to file the complaints on the basis of civil matter, property dispute, money transaction, matrimonial dispute be not done without application of mind.

11. Some time enquiry reports are sent in illegible handwriting.. It is directed that enquiry reports should be sent duly typed or be written in neat and clean handwriting.

12. The complaints against police officials i.e. HCs and constables be enquired into by the SHO himself and against the NGO be enquired by the G. O. supervisory officer and such complaints may not be down marked. First step in complaint against police be to get an affidavit from complainant of the allegations.

13. It is the prime duty of police to provide justice to the complainant. If injustice is meted out to the complainant due to poor enquiry strict departmental action would be taken against the delinquent officials.

14. If the enquiry officer reaches the conclusion that the complainant is making false complaints time and again to harass the other person(s),action u/s 182 IPC be recommended in such cases.

All concerned to ensure meticulous compliance.

Sd/-
Senior Superintendent of Police
UT, Chandigarh.
No:- 28471-91/UT/E-6, dated 26-09-07

Copy to:-
1. IGP for favour of information.
2. All SDPOs.
3. DSP/Crine, PCR, CID and Lines.
4. All SHOs, I/C crime branch, CRU

False complaints by Wife eligible for Divorce

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhupinder Kumar Son Of Shri Desh …
vs
Smt. Versha Rani Wife Of Bhupinder …

on 6 October, 2004

JUDGMENT : V.M. Jain, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the divorce petition, filed by the husband, was dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Bhupinder Kumar (husband) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against respondent-wife, Smt. Varsha Rani, on 20.5.1993, alleging therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 11.5.1990 and that on the next day of the marriage, the respondent-wife started bleeding and was immediately taken to a private nursing home and the lady doctor, who examined her, advised the couple not to indulge in sexual intercourse for a minimum period of one month and at that time the doctor had stated that the respondent-wife was having a pregnancy of 11 weeks (wrongly stated as 11 months). It was alleged that the respondent had concealed the fact regarding her pregnancy from the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant came to know that the respondent was having illicit relations with her Jija, Anil Kumar, in whose house she was residing before the marriage and she was working as a nurse in Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, since prior to her marriage. Various other allegations regarding cruelty were also levelled against the respondent-wife including the allegations that Anil Kumar aforesaid, along with certain Gundas had assaulted the petitioner on 13.7.1990 and has threatened him whereupon a complaint was filed by the petitioner with the Police in this regard which was lateron withdrawn on 19.7.1990 when the matter was compromised. It was further alleged that with the intervention of the Panchayat, the parties got separated from the joint family and hired a rented house and started living there, but the respondent continued visiting the house of Anil Kumar aforesaid in the absence of the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner never had sexual intercourse even for once with the respondent as she did not allow him to come near her and this also amounted to cruelty and that without there being any sexual intercouse between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent-wife had delivered a female child. It was alleged that again on 12.12.1990, Anil Kumar, along with certain Gundas, assaulted the petitioner and the petitioner sustained various injuries and was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak from where he was discharged on 15.12.1990 and during that period, the respondent-wife never bothered to attend to the petitioner in the Hospital and rather she herself consumed some pills on 15.12.1990 and got admitted herself in the Hospital and lodged a false complaint against the petitioner with the Police but on investigation, the said complaint was found to be false and the case was closed. It was alleged that the respondent had taken away all the house-hold articles lying in the rented house on 15.12.1990 and started living in her parents house and in this manner, she deserted the petitioner since 15.12.1990. It was further alleged that on 12.1.1991, the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, the respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 107/151, C.P.C., against the petitioner and got him arrested by the Police and he was discharged by the Magistrate on the same day after hearing the petitioner in the said case. It was alleged that thereafter the petitioner was called to the house of one Subhash Bhalla and when the petitioner went there, he found the respondent, her father and 4-5 other persons present there and they threatened the petitioner to withdraw the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and when the petitioner refused to do so, he was caused injuries. However, at the asking of Subhash Bhalla, the petitioner did not lodge any report with the Police. It was alleged that thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Sections 498A/406, I.P.C., against the petitioner on 13.8.1991 and his family members and got them arrested in the said case. However, the learned Magistrate discharged the mother, brother and the sister of the petitioner but charged the petitioner under Section 406, I.P.C., which complaint was still pending. It was alleged that this had caused great humiliation to the petitioner and his family members. It was alleged that the respondent-wife continued to threaten the petitioner from time to time whereupon the petitioner made a complaint to the various dignitaries for taking action against them. It was alleged that the petitioner was entitled to the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

3. The said petition was contested by the respondent by filing the written reply controverting the allegations contained in the petition. It was denied that she was having illicit relations with her brother-in-law, Anil Kumar, or that she had deserted the petitioner. It was alleged that the child delivered by her was conceived from her husband. It was denied that her husband did not have sexual intercourse with her and alleged that the child was born on 11.2.1991. It was alleged that the petitioner had suffered injuries when he had fallen from a running train. It was denied that she had consumed any pills or that any incident as alleged, had taken place at the house of Subhash Bhalla. She admitted having filed a criminal complaint and it was alleged that the petitioner was a greedy person and was making demands for dowry, etc.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. Both the sides led evidence. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the trial Court dismissed the divorce petition holding that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was entitled to dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner husband filed the present appeal in this Court.

5. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-husband filed application under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C., seeking permission to place on record various documents including certified copy of the order dated 1.10.1999, passed by the J.M.I.C., Rohtak, vide which appellant, Bhupinder Kumar, was acquitted of the charge under Sections 406/498A, I.P.C., in the criminal complaint filed by his wife, Smt. Varsha.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant husband submitted before me that the appellant husband had produced sufficient evidence on the record to show that respondent wife had caused cruelty to him by not only making false complaints with the police against him which were later on withdrawn but also by filing false criminal complaint under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C., in which the appellant husband was acquitted and in this view of the matter, it would be clear that the respondent wife had caused cruelty to the appellant husband and as such appellant husband was entitled to the dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife submitted before me that the appellant husband had failed to prove that the respondent wife had caused cruelty to him and that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, present appeal must be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge must be set aside and a decree of divorce be passed in favour of the appellant husband and against the respondent wife on the ground of cruelty. At the time when the appellant husband had filed divorce petition against respondent wife it was alleged by him in the divorce petition that the respondent wife had filed a false complaint under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C. against the petitioner husband, his two unmarried sisters and brother at Gohana and she got all of them arrested by the police and later on they were released on bail. It was further alleged that the learned Judicial Magistrate Gohana had subsequently discharged the mother, brother and both sisters of the petitioner of the various charges but had charged the appellant husband under Section 406 I.P.C. only which was still pending. It was alleged that this had caused great humiliation, insult, disrespect and disgrace to the petitioner and his family members and had lowered their status in the public. In the written statement filed by the respondent wife, it was alleged that a complaint under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C. was filed because of the regular dowry demands made by the petitioner. It was alleged that it was the petitioner who had humiliated, deserted and disregarded the respondent wife. Thus it would be clear that the reply filed by the respondent wife by way of written statement, with regard to the allegations regarding filing of complaint under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C., that even though she had filed the said complaint against the petitioner husband and his other family members including his mother, brother and two unmarried sisters, yet the mother, brother and two sisters of the petitioner husband were discharged by the learned Magistrate and only the appellant husband was charged. As per the allegations made in the petition and the written statement it would be clear that the said criminal complaint was still pending at the time when the divorce petition was filed. When Smt. Varsha Rani, respondent wife appeared in the witness box as RW-1, she deposed during examination in chief that she had filed a case against the accused petitioner under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C. and that the said case was still pending. Even Bhupinder Kumar, appellant while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 during examination in chief had stated that the respondent had filed a case against him for the offences under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C. and all the members of his family were involved in that case and that he was still facing the charge under Section 406 I.P.C. whereas the other accused had been discharged. As referred to above, the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 6.1.1995 and aggrieved against the same he had filed the present appeal in this court. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for placing on record a certified copy of the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate while deciding the aforesaid complaint under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C., Certified copy of the judgment dated 1.10.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate was also filed alongwith the said application. Notice in the said application was given to the counsel for the other side. During the course of arguments it was not disputed before me by the learned Counsel for the respondent wife that in the said criminal complaint filed by her against the appellant husband under Sections 406/498A I.P.C., the appellant husband had been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 1.10.1999, copy of which was produced on behalf of the appellant husband alongwith the application for additional evidence. It was also admitted before me by the counsel for the parties, during the course of arguments, that the said judgment dated 10.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, acquitting the appellant husband in the complaint under Sections 406/498A I.P.C., had become final inasmuch as no appeal or revision was filed against the said judgment dated 1.10.1999. Since the said judgment dated 1.10.1999 came into existence during the pendency of the present appeal and the correctness of the same was not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the respondent wife, it shall be taken to have been admitted by the counsel for the respondent that in the said criminal complaint filed by the respondent wife against the appellant husband under Sections 406/498A I.P.C., the appellant husband was acquitted by the learned Magistrate.

9. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment dated 1.10.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the appellant husband in the complaint under Sections 406/498A I.P.C. would show that Bhupinder Kumar, appellant was charged under Sections 406/498A I.P.C., to which he had pleaded not guilty and thereafter the respondent wife (who was the complainant) had appeared in the witness box as PW1 and had also produced other witnesses in support of her case. However, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Magistrate found that the complainant (wife) had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused (husband) for the offence under Sections 406/498A I.P.C.. Resultantly the appellant husband was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. In my opinion, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment dated 1.10.1999, passed by the learned Magistrate would clearly show that the respondent wife had levelled false allegations for the offences under Sections 406/498A I.P.C. against the appellant husband by filing false criminal complaint against him and ultimately after trial he was acquitted in the said criminal case and in my opinion, this would clearly prove that the respondent wife had caused mental cruelty to the appellant by filing false complaint under Sections 406/498A I.P.C. against him

10. Besides the above allegations of cruelty against the respondent wife, which stands fully proved on the record, it was also alleged by the appellant husband in the divorce petition that on 12.12.1990 respondent wife through her Jija and other bad elements again got the appellant assaulted near the Railway Station when he was coming from Delhi and was caused grievous injuries as a result of which he was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Rohtak and remained admitted till 15.12.1990 and during this period of respondent wife never came to attend him and rather she intentionally took some drugs on 15.12.1990 and got herself admitted in Medical College Hospital, Rohtak and filed some false report against him with the police even though the petitioner was already admitted in the hospital on that day. It was further alleged that after inquiry when the police found the complaint to be false, then respondent wife made a statement stating therein that she had taken some wrong tablets herself and then the case was “filed”. These allegations were made by the petitioner in para 12 of the divorce petition. In the written statement filed by the respondent wife the allegations were controverted and it was alleged that the petitioner was never assaulted through her Jija and in fact the petitioner had fallen down from the train while coming from Delhi to Rohtak. With regard to the other allegations contained in para 12 of the petition there was a vague denial saying that the rest of the para was wrong and denied. In fact there was no specific denial to the various other allegations made by the petitioner husband in para 12 of the divorce petition, and as such those allegations shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondent wife.

11. Furthermore, with regard to above allegations Bhupinder Kaur, appellant while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 had deposed during examination in chief that on 12.12.1990 when he left the Railway Station, some gundas gave him beatings and he received injuries including injury on his head and he was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Rohtak from where he was discharged on 15.12.1990. He deposed that during this period of his admission in the hospital, the respondent wife or any other relation from her side had not visited him. He further stated that on the evening of 15th when he was discharged, the respondent wife consumed some pills and got herself admitted in the hospital and she reported the matter to the police against him and the police came to arrest him and when he explained to the police that he was not at fault, he was not arrested and that two days later the respondent made a statement to the police that she consumed the pills of her own and thereupon the case was cancelled. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that he had received injuries when he had fallen down from the train. He also denied the suggestion that the respondent had been attending on him during the period of his admission in the hospital. He was not cross examined with regard to the incidents between 12.12.1990 to 15.12.1990, except the one referred to above. When Smt. Varsha respondent appeared in the witness box as RW1, she deposed during examination in chief that the petitioner had received injury while getting down from a train near the railway station and this was a head injury and for three days she continuously remained by the side of his bed when he was suffering from that injury. During cross examination she stated that on the day when the petitioner was discharged from hospital, he went to his house without her knowledge and when she came to his house her mother in law administered calmpose tablets to her and another member of his family told her that either she should run away or they would give her beatings and thereupon she came back. She stated that because of Calmpose tablets she had to be admitted in the hospital. This reply was given by her when she was asked as to whether she was admitted in the hospital alongwith her husband. She stated that she had reported the matter to the police but later she made a statement to the police and withdrew that application. She further stated that this was done by her because certain relations had collected there and parties had compromised. She denied the suggestion that the story regarding compromise was false or that she withdrew that application as the same was not supported by the medical evidence.

12. From a perusal of the above, in my opinion, it stands proved on the record that the respondent wife had filed a complaint against the petitioner with the police which she later on withdrew of her own. In the said complaint she had levelled allegations regarding some tablets having been administered to her, as a result of which she was admitted in the hospital. Nothing has come on the record to, show that she had withdrawn the said complaint as a result of some compromise or under some pressure. Mere allegations made by her in this regard would not be sufficient especially when these allegations made by the petitioner husband in the divorce petition were not specifically denied by her in the written statement and no such explanation was given by her in the written statement. Thus it would be clear that by making those allegations against the petitioner and his family members the respondent wife had caused mental cruelty to the petitioner husband.

13. Furthermore, it was also alleged by the petitioner husband in the divorce petition that he had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent wife on 23.1.1991 and on coming to know about it, as a counter blast the respondent wife had made a false complaint against him under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C., on 4.3.1991 and got him arrested by the police. It was further alleged that when he was produced before the Executive Magistrate on 4.3.1991, after hearing him the Executive Magistrate discharged the petitioner. This allegation was made by him in para 14 of the divorce petition. Para 14 of the written statement filed by the respondent wife is as under:-

“It is admitted to the extent that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the HMA on the grounds mentioned in this petition”.

From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that the various allegations made by the petitioner in para 14 of the divorce petition had not been controverted by the respondent wife. In fact, there is no denial to these allegations, neither specific nor vague. Thus these allegations stood admitted by the respondent. In my opinion, if the respondent wife got the petitioner arrested in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and on the same day he had been discharged by the Executive Magistrate, which fact has not been controverted by the respondent wife, in my opinion, it would be clear that this act of the respondent had also caused mental cruelty to the petitioner husband.

14. Taking all the above mentioned facts into consideration, in my opinion, it would be clear that it stands fully proved on the record that the respondent wife had caused mental cruelty to the appellant husband for which he was entitled to dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce. I am further of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge had erred in law in dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband especially when from the material available on the record it stands fully proved on the record that the respondent wife had caused mental cruelty to the appellant husband by various acts referred to above.

15. In view of the above, present appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 6.1.1995, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, are set aside and marriage between the parties is dissolved by decree of divorce, allowing the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband