Dharshana v. Mahabir Singh

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -2-

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -3-

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -4-

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -5-

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -6in the present case, the instances of cruelty as quoted by the husband were that since the very beginning of their marital life, the behaviour of the wife was hostile and aggressive towards the respondent-husband as well as his family members, that she used to pick up quarrels on trivial matters, that she was habitual of leaving her marital home without the consent of the husband or elderly family members and stayed at her parental house for long; that she was addicted to watching TV serials till late night and avoided preparing meals for her in-laws family; that she used to raise demand for such ornaments and dresses which were worn by the actresses in the TV serials and that on 29.05.2014, she had lodged FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC against her husband. The learned trial Court while deciding issue No.1 in favour of the respondent husband had observed that the wife had made a vague denial of the particular instances of cruelty as quoted by the husband and no explanation had been given by her as to why she had

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -7left her matrimonial house on various occasions and had made false police complaints against the husband and his family members. It was also observed that the appellant did not visit her house since 03.01.2014 and had never met her minor child, who was aged only 5 years at all and that she did not file any case for either seeking custody of the minor child or for visitation rights. While further observing that since the parties had not cohabited for almost five years and there had been a long period of continued separation, it was concluded that the matrimonial bond was beyond repair.

On a close scrutiny of the evidence produced on record, in our opinion, the observations made by learned trial Court that the husband was proved to be subjected to mental cruelty due to the various acts and conduct of the wife, were correctly made and the same warrant no interference. A perusal of the contents of the written statement reveals that apart from making omnibus denial to the averments in the petition, wife in her written statement did not explain anything as to how and since when she had left her matrimonial house. No other assertion had been made by her therein, apart from taking the pleas that she had been thrown out from her matrimonial house, was denied the custody of her minor child and that she was ready to join the company of the husband.

The general and vague denial on the part of the wife of the allegations in the petition in a way amounted to the acceptance of the correctness thereof. Then the evidence which was led by her was totally beyond pleadings, as at that stage, she came out with a new case by deposing that the husband and his family members used to harass and torture her on account of bringing less dowry and by demanding more dowry. She deposed that after the marriage of her brother-in-law Radhe, the behaviour of the husband and his family members had become more aggressive and they pressurized her to give an amount of Rs.30,000/- and threatened that otherwise she would not be allowed to stay in her matrimonial house. She also stated that on 03.01.

2014, her husband, his brother and brother's wife had extended beatings to her and rescuing herself from their clutches, she had gone to her parental house and further that on 16.12.

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -8husband along with his brother had come to her parental house and again demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- and then had given merciless beatings to her mother, brother and herself. However, she gave a contradictory statement during her cross-examination itself, by saying that on 16.02.2014, the husband and his brother had not come to her parental house. By saying so, she falsified her own claim about raising demand of Rs.30,000/- by the husband or about extending beatings to her family members and herself. The plea taken by the wife with regard to demand of Rs.30,000/- by the husband also stood falsified on account of the fact that during cross-examination, it was admitted by her that in FIR No.145 dated 29.05.2014 lodged by her under Sections 498A, 406 etc.

of IPC, she had alleged that demand of dowry amounting to Rs.10 lacs had been raised by the husband and his family members. The simple denial of the pleas as taken in the petition filed by the husband coupled with the fact that the case as set up by the wife in her sworn deposition, was totally beyond pleadings and her statement even on that point is found to be self-contradictory as observed above, it is explicit that a false story had been set up by the wife with regard to the respondent-husband throwing her out of her matrimonial house or torturing her on account of demand of dowry. The net result is that the evidence led by the husband quoting specific instances of cruelty has remained unshattered and hence the same could certainly be acted and relied upon for the purpose of proving that wife had committed acts of cruelty with him.

13.

It is also important to note that admittedly, the wife had launched criminal prosecution against the husband and his family members by lodging FIR No.145 dated 29.05.2014 under Section 406 and 498 A etc. of IPC. Though, neither of the parties placed on record copy of the said FIR nor any evidence was led as to what was the fate of that criminal prosecution, however, nonetheless, it is clear in view of the above discussion that due to the reason that with regard to the demand of dowry, the allegations in the FIR which were about demand of Rs.10 lacs by the husband, stood contradicted from the plea taken in her sworn testimony that the husband raised demand of Rs.30,000/-, there is no gain-saying that these allegations

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -9were unsubstantiated and false. It is well settled proposition of law that even filing of criminal case on unsubstantiated allegations of offence of 14.

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -10-

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -11-

FAO No.5207 of 2019 (O&M) -12Jyoti-IV