Introduction
The Honorable Supreme Court of India, in a recent landmark judgment given (on 6 th October, 2016) in the case of Narendra v. K. Meena has held that persistent efforts of wife to constrain husband to be separated from family constituted an act of “cruelty” and the husband was hence entitled to a decree of divorce under the purview of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
By the said judgment, the Honorable Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Karnataka High Court and upheld the decree of divorce passed by the trial Family Court, Bangalore.
Facts of the Case (In brief)
The Appellant-husband had filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty against the Respondentwife.
he case of the husband was that the wife did not live happily with the husband even for a month after the marriage and that she had become cruel because of her highly suspicious nature and she used to level absolutely frivolous but serious allegations against him regarding his character and more particularly about his extra-marital relationship.
As per the Appellant, his wife’s behaviour made his life miserable and it became impossible for him to stay with his wife. Moreover, she wanted him to leave his parents and other family members and to get separated from them so that she can live independently.
Another important allegation was that the wife would very often threaten the husband that she would commit suicide. In fact, there was an incident where she picked up a quarrel with the husband, went to the bathroom, locked the door from inside and poured kerosene on her body and attempted to commit suicide.
The Family Court granted a decree of divorce to the husband, but upon an appeal the High Court, the decree of divorce was set aside, because the High Court found justification in the Respondent-wife’s case. The Appellant – husband hence filed an appeal before the Honorable Supreme Court of India.
Ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court (Relevant portions in Unquoted Form and underlining supplied for emphasis)
Upon a careful scrutiny of evidence of the parties, the Court observed and held as under:-
the wife had locked herself in the bathroom and had poured kerosene on herself so as to commit suicide. The door of the bathroom was broken open and the she was saved. Had she been successful in her attempt to commit suicide, then one can foresee the consequences and the plight of the husband because in that event he would have been put to immense difficulties because of the legal provisions. There was no fault on the part of the husband nor was there any reason for the wife to make an attempt to commit suicide. No husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life. The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress. The thought itself is distressing. Such a mental cruelty could not have been taken lightly by the High Court. Therefore, only this one event was sufficient for the husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
It was not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her.
The trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her husband separated from his family because the income of the husband was also spent for maintaining his family. The said grievance of the wife was absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from the family-the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that.
Normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband.
With regard to the allegations about an extra-marital affair with the maid named “Kamla”, the re-appreciation of the evidence by the High Court did not appear to be correct. There was sufficient evidence to the effect that there was no maid named Kamla working at the residence of the Appellant. Some averment with regard to some relative had been relied upon by the High Court to come to a conclusion that there was a lady named Kamla but the High Court has ignored the fact that the Respondent-wife had levelled allegations with regard to an extra-marital affair of the Appellant with the maid and not with someone else. To suffer an allegation pertaining to one’s character of having an extramarital affair is quite torturous for any person-be it a husband or a wife and that can surely be a cause for metal cruelty
Taking an overall view of the entire evidence and the judgment delivered by the trial Court, the Honorable Supreme Court came to a conclusion that behaviour of the Respondent wife appeared to be terrifying and horrible and one would find it difficult to live with such a person with tranquillity and peace of mind. Such torture would adversely affect the life of the husband.
The Court also put on record the submission of the counsel that the Respondent wife was not staying with the Appellant for more than 20 years. Their daughter had also grown up and working. The Court hence believed that the separation of the husband and the wife must have also become normal for her and therefore, at this juncture it would not be proper to bring them together, especially when the Appellant-husband was treated so cruelly by the Respondent-wife.
The Court quashed and set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and restored the decree of divorce passed by the trial Family Court, Bangalore.
Brief Analysis & Comments
The aforesaid judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of India, is an addition to the ever expansive coverage of the term “cruelty” and the same being a ground of divorce. The judgment is a perfect example as to how law is to be interpreted to adjudicate on issues which arise out of modernisation.
The bold stance taken by the Honorable Supreme Court in holding up the Indian Culture of son taking care of his parents is praise-worthy in our view. Also commendable is the fact that the Court articulated the plight and mental suffering of the person (whether husband or wife) against whom frivolous allegations of extra marital affairs are made and also when there is a case of suicide (or even an attempted suicide), even the innocent have to face the daunting allegations which ruin his / her entire life.
Having said that, we also think that this judgment given by the Honorable Supreme Court should not be taken as an authority that, in all cases where the wife demands separation from parents, that triggers ground of cruelty (and divorce) becomes available to the husband. This is because it is a settled legal position that, – a judgment, howsoever binding it may be, must always be evaluated basis the facts and circumstances of every case. The peculiar features in this case were that: – (i) wife was of highly suspicious nature, (ii) the ground for seeking separation from husband’s parents was solely driven by monetary agenda and not other grounds such as torture of wife by in-laws etc, (iii) the case was aggravated by an attempt of suicide made by wife, (iv) there was no evidence even remotely circumstantial to substantiate the wife’s allegation of the husband having an extra-marital affair with the maid and last but not the least, (v) the son was the only earning member of the family.
In other words, if a particular case has facts which are in deviation with the ones mentioned above, then the ratio of this judgment will not apply squarely, albeit it can be used as a supporting judgment. The same can also be inferred from the Court’s mentioning that if a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that. 4.5 The only unfortunate part (albeit not uncommon in Indian Judiciary) of the judgment was that it could be given after a lapse of more than 8 years from the date when the appeal was filed in the Honorable Supreme Court.///
About Bulwark Solicitors
Bulwark Solicitors is a law firm pioneered by Solicitor Chirag Sancheti and Advocate Deep Shridharani. The firm has expertise in the areas of both Litigation and non-Litigation. Under the non-litigation Law practice, the firm practices in the areas of Corporate Law, Intellectual Property Law, Bankruptcy & Insolvency Law, Competition Law, Real Estate and Conveyancing and DTAA Advisory. Further, under Corporate Law area, we practice Company Law, Securities Law, Mergers and Amalgamations, Private Equity and Venture Capital Investment Transactions, Legal Due Diligence and Foreign Exchange Management Law.