Frequent Visits To Husband’s Office To Create Scene With Abusive Language Would Amount To Cruelty: Chhattisgarh HC - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

Frequent Visits To Husband’s Office To Create Scene With Abusive Language Would Amount To Cruelty: Chhattisgarh HC

Published

on

Frequent Visits To Husband’s Office To Create Scene With Abusive Language Would Amount To Cruelty: Chhattisgarh HC

While upholding a divorce decree that was granted in favour of the husband, the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has in an extremely laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Smt Nalini Mishra vs Surendra Kumar Patel in FA(MAT) No. 8 of 2020 that was pronounced finally on August 18, 2022 observed that the act of a wife visiting the office premises of the husband and creating scenes with abusive language amount to cruelty. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal observed that, “…when a wife goes to the office premises of the husband, abuses him and accuses him of certain relation, naturally it would result into diminishing the image of the husband before the colleagues and the office stature will certainly go down.” The Court was also of the firm view that abusing in-laws, stopping the husband to meet his parents, and forcing the husband to leave the marriage function of his younger brother are also unnatural cruel acts as such acts would bring down the image and the prestige of a family in the public eye which may also amount to cruelty. 

At the outset, this learned judgment authored by Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri for a Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal first and foremost puts forth in para 1 that, “The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2019 passed in H.M.A. 677/2017 by the learned family Court, Raipur, whereby the application filed by the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty was allowed. The present appeal is by the wife.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “The brief facts of the case are that the husband levelled allegation that the marriage in between the parties solemnized on 31.10.2010 and out of the said wedlock a child was born. Thereafter, with the passage of time, it is alleged that the wife used to spent money as per her own choice and the visit of the husband to his parents was objected & eventually stopped. It is stated whenever he wanted to visit his parents, the wife used to abuse him resulting into stoppage of meeting of the husband with his parents. It was further alleged that without the consent and permission of the husband she went to a place called Belpahad for her business at Mahanadi coalfield for the business of coal shifting and when the husband tried to intervene, he was abused and insulted. The respondent/husband further alleged that the wife used to take away the entire salary of the husband and used to spent in her business and if a query was made about the expenses, it was reciprocated with the abuses. It is alleged that the wife procured 5 vehicles on loan without the consent of the husband and she deliberately stopped to discharge her household responsibilities including taking care of the child. It is stated that even the husband was stopped to attend the marriage of his real brother and the maternal sister of the husband when wanted to visit their place to appear in an examination from outside, the wife alleged illicit relation of the girl with the husband. It was further alleged that the husband is having an illicit relation with an office colleague. In a result, the husband on different occasions made a police report explaining the facts.”

Further, it is then stated in para 3 that, “It is further alleged that at one occasion the wife had surreptitiously stolen away the valuable papers which were kept in the car and the report having been made about such theft, after CCTV footage when it was discovered that the wife had done this, she was arrested in a criminal case. Referring to a particular date, it is stated by the husband that the wife used to abuse and bald allegations were made against the husband and even at a point of time she assaulted the younger sister of the respondent, therefore, on various grounds, the husband sought decree of divorce.”

To be sure, the Division Bench then discloses in para 5 that, “Learned family Court framed issue on the ground that whether the husband was treated with cruelty by wife or not. On behalf of the husband/respondent, two witnesses were examined namely Surendra Kumar Patel i.e. the husband himself as PW-1 and sister of the wife namely Rohini Mishra (PW-2). Whereas on behalf of the wife, she examined herself as DW-1 and one witness Ananda Pathak, another sister. The learned family Court after evaluating the facts & evidence, allowed the application of the husband, thereby decree of divorce was granted. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree, the present appeal is by the wife.”

It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench then lays bare in para 10 that, “In the backdrop of facts, we would like to deliberate upon evidence to find out whether sufficient evidence exist over the cruelty as against the husband. The husband Surendra Kumar Patel was examined as PW-1. As per the statement, both of them met in the year 2009 thereafter fell in love and got married on 31.10.2010 is not in dispute. It is further stated that after marriage, the entire salary of the husband was being taken away by the wife and she used to spend money according to her own choice and will. He further stated that whenever he wanted to visit his parents, it was objected by the wife and even hurled severe abuses. He stated that as a result of it, there was a complete stoppage of meeting of the husband with his parents. He further stated that even giving the entire salary part to the wife, she demanded more money for her business as she was engaged in a coal handling business and on her pressure, the husband took a loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from his friends to procure the vehicle for the business of wife. Narrating an incident of 09.12.2016 it is deposed that the marriage of the brother of the respondent was fixed and he went to attend the marriage, but over the phone he was abused severely, he had to leave the procession of marriage in the mid way and had to come back. He further stated that when he came back at that time she also started abusing to the extent that the neighbors had to intervene to console.”

Furthermore, it is then revealed in para 11 that, “Further narrating an incident it is stated that the cousin sister of the respondent namely Shweta had to come to Raipur to appear in a P.S.C. exam and the respondent being brother asked her to stay in their house. However, when she came, the wife made allegation of illicit relation in between them and abused. Subsequently, she made a complaint to the office that the husband has an illicit relation with a lady colleague of the office and when he wanted to console, threat was extended that he would be inculpated in a criminal case. It is further deposed that because of the torture meted out, the earlier husband of the appellant got separated and eventually he died. Narrating the further incident of 03.05.2018, it is stated that when the respondent after parking his car in the office went along with higher officials for some official work and when came back he found the door of the car opened and it was observed that the important papers from the car were stolen which includes ATM Card, Adhar Card etc. along with official important documents, for which on the basis of CCTV footage a report was made and it was found that it was the wife who had stolen the said documents, for which she was arrested for the offence under Section 379 IPC and subsequently was released. It is stated that in order to damage the reputation and causing harm to the husband, the wife had done such act.”

Most significantly, the Division Bench minces no words to hold in para 16 that, “The over all assessment of the evidence, therefore, would show that the appellant/wife used to abuse the husband on trivial issues of which the husband made complaint many times, which is proved by Ex. P-1, P-2 & P-3, however, the same being non-cognizable, the police did not take cognizance of it. The fact remains that the husband made complaint to the police about the rash and abusive behaviour coupled with the fact that the complaint was made that he was physically abused with the scratches on his neck. The statement of Surendra Kumar Patel (PW-1) read with Ex. P-4 supported by statement of Rohini Mishra (PW-2) would show that the wife has made void allegation of illicit relationship of the husband with a lady outside the marriage and even a complaint was made by the wife to the Chief Minister to transfer the husband from a particular posting in the office with allegation of illicit relations. Apart from it, the statement of Surendra Kumar Patel (PW-1) & Rohini Mishra (PW-2) it is established that the wife used to visit the office of the husband and create scene with abusive language. In such a situation when a wife goes to the office premises of the husband, abuses him and accuses him of certain relation, naturally it would result into diminishing the image of the husband before the colleagues and the office stature will certainly go down. Except such oral bald allegation by the wife, the allegation could not be established. Even it is stated that the wife used to abuse the in-laws and stopped the husband to meet his parents, which would also amount to cruelty. To pull back the husband to attend the marriage procession in the mid way, whereby the husband was forced to leave the marriage of his younger brother is also an unnatural cruel act. Such act would bring down the image and the prestige of a family in the public hike, which may also amount to cruelty.”

Most forthrightly, the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 17 that, “Taking into over all evidence, we are of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court do not require any interference and we affirm the finding arrived at by the Family Court.”

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 18 that, “In a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.”

All told, the Chhattisgarh High Court has in this notable judgment affirmed the finding arrived at by the Family Court. The Court made it indubitably clear that frequent visits to husband’s office to create scene with abusive language would amount to cruelty. The decree of divorce was thus upheld. Very rightly so!

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

Who will be next APTEL Chairman ?

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

Who will be next APTEL Chairman ?

Justice Hemant Gupta, currently serving as Judge, Supreme Court of India may be appointed as the next Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). Justice Hemant Gupta’s tenure as Judge of Supreme Court comes to an end on October 16th.

Justice Gupta enrolled as an advocate in July 1980 and started practice in the District Court of Chandigarh. He entered in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and worked on Civil, Labour, Company and Constitutional matters. In 1997 he was appointed Additional Advocate General of Punjab and elevated as a Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 2 July 2002. Justice Gupta was transferred to the Patna High Court in February 2016,[1] thereafter took over the charge of acting chief justice of the Patna High Court after the retirement of Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari on 29 October 2016. He was appointed the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 18 March 2017.In November 2018 he became Justice of the Supreme Court of India

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Delhi HC asks trial court to consider Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea for relief

Published

on

By

The Delhi High Court has instructed a trial court to first consider former JNU student Sharjeel Imam’s application for relief under Section 436-A CrPC on the grounds that he has been in custody for 31 months following a 2019 sedition FIR, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive to keep sedition cases on hold.

According to Section 436-A, a person might well be released on bail by the court after serving a sentence of up to one-half the maximum allowed for the offence against him up until the end of the trial.

Imam claims that because he has been imprisoned for more than a year and a half since his arrest in February 2020 and has served more than half of the maximum sentence of three years under Section 153A (promoting hostility among religious groups), he is entitled to the advantage of being released.

A speech that Imam delivered at Jamia Millia Islamia in 2019 is the subject of a charge against him that was filed at the New Friends Colony (NFC) Police station.

Justice Anoop Mendiratta asked the trial court to consider the Supreme Court’s order keeping the offence of sedition in abeyance when deciding whether to grant the applicant’s request for default bail on Monday (September 26), while permitting him to withdraw his application for regular bail in a 2019 sedition case.

Appearing for Imam, his counsel Ahmad Ibrahim told the judge that the trial court, while dismissing his bail plea, had only made observations against him with respect to offences under Section 153A and 124A (sedition) and opined that no case was made out under other offences.

The counsel argued that the only offence which now warrants consideration of the trial court during the hearing of bail plea is Section 153A as offence of sedition has been kept abeyance.

Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad told the court that Imam’s bail plea pending before High Court may be withdrawn in entirety, as it may not be appropriate to consider the application under Section 436A CrPC in a piecemeal with reference to Section 153A of IPC.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Delhi High Court restrains Axis Bank from substituting PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd (PSTR) as the concessionaire of the Pune Satara Toll Road Project

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

Delhi high court

The Delhi High Court has restrained Axis bank from substituting PS Toll Road Pvt. Ltd (PSTR) as a concessionaire of the Pune Satara Toll Road Project. The order authored by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani found Axis Bank in breach of its own undertaking given before the court.

The court says Axis Bank is bound by its undertaking given to the court in February 2021 & then in March 2021 that it will not go ahead with the substitution of the concessionaire in the PS Toll Road project, without the court’s nod.

Delhi HC says Axis Bank’s undertaking was unconditional, and therefore it cannot rely upon any event under the Concession Agreement or the Substitution Agreement, to appoint a new concessionaire in the project.

PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd (PSTR), the concessionaire of the Pune Satara Toll Road project, had challenged the appointment of a new concessionaire in the project by the Axis Bank despite a stay on the process by the Delhi HC in March 2021.

PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd, in its appeal before the Delhi HC, has contended that Axis Bank was in breach of its own undertaking given before the court in 2021, that it will not finalize the bids or award the contract to a third party, thereby substituting the PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd.

Sr. Adv. Neeraj Kishan Kaul with Sr. Adv. Dayan Krishnan and Adv. Mahesh Agarwal of Agarwal Law Associates (ALA) represented PS Toll Road Pvt. Ltd.

Court has issued notice to Axis Bank and the matter will be heard on 28 September.

PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd is a subsidiary of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. and was awarded the contract for six laning of 140 KM of stretch between Pune and Satara in Maharashtra on BOT basis. The project is now complete.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court: Permanent injunction cannot be sought on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell

Published

on

Supreme Court: Permanent injunction cannot be sought on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell

The Supreme Court in the case Balram Singh vs Kelo Devi observed and stated that a relief of permanent injunction cannot be sought on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell.
The bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that a plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for specific performance.
In the present case, a suit has been filled by the plaintiff praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing her possession in the suit property, which was claimed on the basis of the agreement to sell of which was an unregistered agreement/document to sell on ten rupees stamp paper. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by the original plaintiff and refused to grant permanent injunction and allowed the counter-claim of the defendant. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court judgment and decreed the suit. The second appeal filled by the defendant was dismissed by the High Court.
In appeal, the defendant-appellant contended that an unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence and that the suit filed by the original plaintiff was only for permanent injunction and she did not seek the relief for specific performance of agreement to sell by adopting a clever drafting as she was well aware that she would not succeed in the suit filled for specific performance on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell. On the other hand, it was contended by the respondent-plaintiff that an unregistered document can be used for collateral purpose and therefore both, the first appellate Court as well as the High Court have rightly passed a decree for permanent injunction while considering the agreement for selling of collateral purpose for grant of permanent injunction.
The Apex Court observed, while allowing the appeal:
However, having conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, a suit was filed by the plaintiff simplicitor for permanent injunction only. In a given case, it may be true that an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose and at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case filled for the relief of specific performance. Thus, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession which was being allowed by the learned trial Court. It has been cleverly prayed by the plaintiff for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered agreement/document to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. By clever drafting, the plaintiff cannot get relief.
Therefore, the court restored the Trial Court judgment dismissing the suit and allowing the counter-claim.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court refuses to stay EC proceedings on Shinde’s claim, ‘real’ Shiv Sena tussle

Published

on

Who is real Shiv Sena? SC leaves it to EC to decide

On Tuesday, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court allowed the Election Commission of India to go ahead and decide Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s claim that his faction represents the “real” Shiv Sena.
The bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dismissed the plea of Uddhav Thackeray camps to stay the ECI proceedings. It was argued by Mr. Thackeray that the Shinde faction was facing disqualification proceedings for defection under the 10th schedule and that the ECI should wait until the question of disqualification was decided.
The Supreme Court stated during the hearing that there was a bit of problem with Mr. Thackeray’s argument that the ECI proceedings under the Symbols Order of 1968 should be “stultified” merely because of a disqualification process against the Shinde function was pending before the Assembly Speaker.
Also, the bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha stated that “we direct that there would be no stay of the proceedings before the Election Commission”.
It was observed that the Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi government had collapsed after a revolt by Mr. Shinde and the 39 other legislators against the Sena leadership.
On June 30, Mr. Shinde was sworn in as the CM along with BJP’s Devendra Fadnavis as his deputy.
The Supreme Court had referred to a five-judge bench on August 30, the plea filled by the Thackeray and Shinde-led factions raising several constitutional questions related to defection, disqualification and merger.
It was also stated that it had been asked the Election Commission Of India (ECI) not to pass any orders on the Shinde faction’s petition that it be considered the “real” Shiv Sena and be granted the party’s poll symbol.
However, the bench led by the then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana has said that the batch of petitions raise important constitutional issues which is relating to the 10th schedule of the Constitution pertaining to the disqualifications, power of the speaker and the governor, and judicial review.
It is provided by the 10th schedule of the Constitution for the prevention of defection of the elected and the nominated members for their political parties and contains stringent provisions against defection.
Earlier, it has been submitted by Thackeray faction that party MLAs loyal to Shinde can save themselves from disqualification under the 10th schedule of the constitution only by merging with another political party.
It has been contended by the Shinde group that the anti-defection law is not a weapon for a leader who has lost the confidence of his own party.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends To Elevate Bombay HC Chief Justice Dipankar Datta As Judge Of Supreme Court

Published

on

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends To Elevate Bombay HC Chief Justice Dipankar Datta As Judge Of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended to elevate Bombay High Court Chief Justice Dipankar Datta as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Justice Datta is the son of a former Calcutta High Court Judge, late (J) Salil Kumar Datta and brother-in-law of Justice Amitava Roy, former Supreme Court Judge and was born in February 1965.
However, in 1989, he obtained his LL.B. degree from the University of Calcutta and was enrolled as an Advocate on November 16, 1989. Further, he worked as a Junior Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal from May 16, 2002 to January 16, 2004 and as a Counsel for the Union of India since 1998.
From June 22, 2006., he worked as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court. On April 28, 2020., he was elevated as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.
He has passed several significant judgements as CJ of the Bombay High Court, including home vaccination for the bedridden and has directed a preliminary enquiry against Anil Deshmukh – Maharashtra Home Minister at the time, and an authoritative pronouncement on an illegal construction.

Continue Reading

Trending