This article is written by Shreeji Saraf. This article talks about the case of Ravi Kumar vs. Julmi Devi (2010) which in turn further provides an understanding of the facts, what were the issues raised, judgement of the Court, arguments that were presented by both the parties and it highlights what were legal aspects involved in the case. In addition, it further goes on to discuss what are the different perceptions of cruelty.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The case deals with an appeal filed before the Supreme Court of India against the order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court reversed the order of the trial court in a matrimonial proceeding. This case highlights what are the different insights of cruelty in today’s world. Sometimes it might constitute an act or action that is offensive, torturous and inflicts pain on any person, be it physical or mental. It has been noted in this case that if in particular, one act constitutes cruelty, it does not necessarily mean that it shall have the same application in other cases. This case even further highlights that it is the duty of the lower courts to give equal and prime weightage to the testimony of the child even though this has been ignored in this respective case. Lower courts should give considerable importance to these facts.
Details of the case
Name of the Appellant: Ravi Kumar
Name of the Respondent: Julmi Devi
Citation of the case: (2010) 4 SCC 476
Name of the Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court
Hon’ble Bench: P. Sathasivam & A.K. Ganguly, JJ.
Disposition: Dismissed
Judgement passed on: February 9, 2010
Facts of the case
The husband, Ravi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as husband) had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India disputing the judgement and the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The High Court set aside the judgement and order passed by the District Court, Mandi in the Petition No, 20 of 2002 dated 27.10.2004. The appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the High Court.
Firstly, the wife Julmi Devi (hereinafter referred to as wife) had filed an appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgement and the order passed by the District Judge, Mandi wherein the decree of divorce was awarded in favour of the husband.
The facts that should be taken into consideration for the relevant decision of appeal is that the parties were married according to the Hindu rites and customs on 13.12.1988. A girl child was born of the said wedlock in March, 1990. The husband stated that after the birth of the child, the wife departed for her parental house to stay there which was situated in Village Samlet.
The husband further alleged that the wife was earlier working at Village Garli and she inhabited there, when she was transferred from Village Garli to Chuhaku the wife still decided to stay at her parental house in spite of repeated requests by the husband. Village Chuhaku was situated 3 kms away from her matrimonial house. The husband further mentioned that in May, 1994, the wife had come over for a short period of time but after she completely deserted him.
As the wife refused to come back to her matrimonial house, the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for the restitution of conjugal rights. Conjugal rights mean the right to stay together. Section 9 of the Act talks about a situation where in either of the spouses has deserted the other or has withdrawn from the society without any justifiable cause, the aggrieved spouse can claim for restitution of conjugal rights by filing a petition before the concerned Court.
When the Court is satisfied that the withdrawal was without any proper reason or cause, the Court can grant a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. In this case the Appellant claimed for restitution of conjugal rights mentioning that the respondent was not cohabitating with the appellant. An understanding or agreement was considered to have been reached between both the parties where the wife stated that she had agreed to live with her husband before the Lok Adalat.
The husband further claimed that the wife did not comply with the compromise taken before the Lok Adalat and continued not to cohabitate with the husband. The husband being annoyed by the acts of the wife and his continuous efforts to bring the wife back put in order for the decree of divorce. The petition being filed by the husband for the dissolution of the marriage stated cruelty and desertion as the grounds as per Section 13 of the Act.
The wife repudiated all the statements made by the husband against her. According to the wife, she was staying with her husband and it was not her, but the husband who had failed to look after her. Further, the wife taking a stance claimed that despite the arrangement made between the parties before the Lok Adalat, it was the husband who did not comply with compromise and started ill treating the wife.
Several witnesses were presented by the husband which stated the wife was staying separately and on repeated requests made by the husband asking the wife to come back the wife refused all the time. On the other hand, the wife denied all the allegations and statements made against her. She stated that the husband used to abuse her, she had even suffered cruelty.
The District Judge, Mandi had failed to provide a solution for both the husband and wife that had approached the Court. An order was passed by the concerned judge which granted divorce to both the parties but the same was challenged by the wife in front of the High Court and the High Court had set aside the judgement of the Lok Adalat.
While altering the judgement, the High Court had taken measures under Section 28 of the Act. The Court acted as the first Court of appeal. One of the important points that needs to be highlighted is that when a husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, all acts of cruelty executed by the wife will be deemed to have been forgiven by the husband.
On this point, the concerned Court referred to the observations made by the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nirmala Devi vs. Ved Prakash(1992). The term ‘condonation’ has not been properly elucidated anywhere. It technically means or implies that it removes all the alleged acts of the injured spouse. In another sense, it means reconciliation where in it means the motive or having the intention to set aside all the wrongs and reinstate the offending partner on the same status as earlier he/she had. The concerned Court referred to the above mentioned context because the husband had moved the petition under Section 9 of the act.
The High Court after observing the facts further, stated that there were several allegations made by the husband against the wife, but the husband was not able to prove or submit any concrete evidence in support of the allegations.
Judgement of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
After taking into account the said discovery, the High Court was of the opinion that the husband on his part had failed in proving the claims of either cruelty or desertion which had been put forward by him against the wife. On his end, he had failed to establish or submit proof regarding the specific accusations. The High Court was of the opinion that the learned Trial Court had made a mistake in passing the decree of divorce and is setting aside the same.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
Firstly, the High Court held that the husband had failed in establishing or providing evidence of cruelty by the wife as mentioned by him. The concerned Court dismissed his mention and reversed the judgement of the Trial Court. It even further laid down the importance of credible evidence.
Secondly, the appellant being aggrieved by the judgement passed by the High Court filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was of the view that there were no relevant reasons to interfere with the judgement passed or granted by the High Court. It stated that the High Court had not been wronged in reversing or setting aside the findings of the Trial Court.
Issues raised
Issue raised in the Supreme Court of India-
- Has there been any mistake on part of the High Court in setting aside the judgement and order passed by the District Court and passing the same judgement on the basis of cruelty?
Arguments of the parties
Appellant
The husband being the Appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India being dissatisfied by the judgement and order passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, he argued that there were several witnesses presented by the Appellant side that stated or mentioned that the wife was not residing at her matrimonial house and some of the witnesses even went to the wife ‘s parent’s house to bring her back but she simply refused to do so. He further claimed that it was the wife who mistreated him. Later on, when the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel of the husband argued that the Court did not have the opportunity to overall conduct or check the credibility of witnesses. As the High Court was acting as the first Court of appeal it was not required to alter or change the decision of the Trial Court. The point here cannot be argued as while the court is exercising its power under Section 28 of the Act the court is both court of law and facts.
The appellant claimed that the High Court had made a mistake in reversing the judgement of the trial Court and passing the order in favour of the wife on the above mentioned grounds.
Respondent
The respondent being the wife argued before the Himachal Pradesh High Court that all the allegations mentioned by the husband against her are false. She further claimed that it was the husband who mistreated her and abused her. The wife had tried several times to join the company of the husband but he completely refused it. As per the respondent, the appellant used to beat her and it was the husband who neglected her. She further added that she was threatened by him and was asked to sign on a blank paper. She completely denied all the allegations.
Legal aspects involved in Ravi Kumar vs. Julmi Devi (2010)
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 9 of the Act talks about a situation where in either of the spouses has deserted the other or has withdrawn from the society without any justifiable cause, the aggrieved spouse can claim for restitution of conjugal rights by filing a petition before the concerned Court. When the Court is satisfied that the withdrawal was without any proper reason or cause, the Court can grant a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Provided that where the withdrawal by the spouse is proved to be reasonable and the spouse has been able to prove the same, the court may not pass the decree.
Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 28 of the Act mentions the scope of appeals from decrees and orders. This section outlines that where any of the parties is not satisfied with the decision of the lower Court, they can file an appeal to the High Court and the appeal needs to be filed within 90 days from the date of passing the order or decree. If the High Court is satisfied with sufficient cause provided by the party for not filing the appeal within 90 days, it can further provide an extension for the same.
Order 41 Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
This provision allows the Court to do complete justice to the parties of the case. It could grant any such decision or order that does justice to the parties which should have been passed.
Judgement in Ravi Kumar vs. Julmi Devi (2010)
The Supreme Court of India in this case dismissed the appeal of the husband and stated that there were no valid reasons or grounds to interfere with the ruling of the High Court. There were several indeterminate statements or declarations made, but there was no such statement or declaration with determined aspects related to that of the cruelty by the wife as mentioned by the husband. There was no particular instance of desertion presented by the husband.
After going briefly through the materials and findings, the Supreme Court observed that the testimony of a child is of great importance in this particular case but the High Court had forgotten to take that into consideration or give importance to the testimony of the child. The daughter had clearly mentioned in her testimony that the wife was beaten by the husband which ultimately provided or gave sufficient reason or cause to the wife to live separately at her parental house. The daughter had further even denied that her mother did not abuse her father.
In the power exercised by the Court it came to an observation that the lower courts had not properly considered the evidence or testimony of the child. In such a particular case it cannot be stated that the wife is to blame for cruelty.
The Supreme Court did not find any concrete reason to interfere with the judgement passed by the High Court. As the High Court had reversed the order of the lower court highlighting that no proper evidence had been presented on behalf of the husband that supports its contentions of claim of cruelty against the wife. The High Court even added that the burden of proof was on the husband.
Judgments referred to in this case
N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane (1975)
In this case, the husband being the appellant and the wife being the respondent were married to each other from the year 1956. Both the partners had travelled together and resided at several places and 3 daughters were born out of wedlock. Before marriage, the wife’s father sent a letter which stated her illness. After some time, from both sides, there were several disagreements, and arguments because of which their relationship started weakening and there were claims of cruelty from both sides. Later on, the relationship between them got worse accompanied by hateful letters from relatives and mutual mistrust. The husband filed for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act but the lower courts dismissed it. He then further made an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also dismissed his application. The Court stated that the lower courts failed to give importance or credibility to the evidence regarding that of the cruelty. The Court noted that it is tough for them to pass a judgement or consider any of the facts of cruelty or desertion as mentioned by the appellant against the respondent because the appellant had deliberately ignored the earlier acts of the respondent.
The Supreme Court referred to this case highlighting that one is not as concerned about the rational and sensible man in the case of matrimony as concerned in the case of negligence. If one man is sensible and rational then, there is no scope for cruelty cases but it is not so. Cases of cruelty take place when either of the spouses doesn’t behave and thinks in a rational way towards the others.
Shoba Rani vs. Madhukar Reddl (1987)
In this case, the wife had filed for divorce stating cruelty as the grounds and repeated demands of money from her mother in law. Further, the lower courts had rejected her claims stating that she had failed to establish evidence that supported her claims. The main issue that was highlighted in this case was whether the continuous request for money amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Act and whether the evidence that was presented before the courts in support of claims was enough or not.
The Supreme Court was of the view that the claims made by the wife in the present case amounted to cruelty as per Section 13(1)(1a) of the Act and further goes on to state that the evidence which was submitted by the wife in the court was sufficient to support her claim and the the lower courts had made a mistake in the application of cruelty, in this case, The court granted for the dissolution of the marriage.
The Supreme Court referred this case for the alternative insight related to cruelty in marriage in today’s world and simply stated that there has been a significant difference and development in today’s household so the court should not only stick to the standard of living. There are several other factors which contribute to the cause of cruelty. One set of acts of cruelty applied in one case might be different in another case.
Critical analysis of the case
Through the case of Ravi Kumar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has tried to point out that there are several definitions of cruelty. The High Court in the particular case even had mentioned that the party claiming desertion must not only prove the same but also establish that the other party against whom it is claiming desertion had the proper intention and motive to permanently desert the other party.
The High Court even added that the husband claiming desertion must ensure that it was neither of his acts that led to the reason or cause behind the wife living separately. One of the important points that needs to be highlighted is that when a husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, all acts of cruelty executed by the wife will be deemed to have been forgiven by the husband At this point, the concerned court referred to the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Nirmala Devi vs. Ved Prakash (1992).
The mention of the power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code gives the court the power to do justice among the parties. Through the mentioned order, several powers are imposed on a court. Further, it should be noted that there is no proper and specific definition of the term ‘cruelty’ under the Act. Considering marital relationships, cruelty could mean disrespect of one spouse by the other and this often leads to fights or arguments between the spouses.
Sometimes cruelty could be in the form of verbal abuse, it could even take the form of physical abuse, beating of one spouse by the other which leads to violence. So, it is clearly not possible to establish a proper definition of cruelty. Determining whether the wife is cruel to the husband or the other way around should not be determined by any pre specific formula or notion.
It should be determined by taking into consideration all the given circumstances and facts of a particular case. In marital relationships, cruelty could be sometimes just an approach or attitude or simply an act or action that is offensive, torturous and inflicts pain on any person be it physical or mental. The form or category of cruelty could vary from case to case and person to person. An established form of cruelty could not be considered as cruelty in other cases.
There could be various conditions that should be taken into account with regard to cruelty like social and economic conditions, the society or the way of living which is of importance to them. The lower Court has not been able to properly value the evidence of the child, which is of great importance in this particular case.
The Supreme Court has further laid that the High Court being the court of appeal is both the court of law and facts and there is no proper basis or grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere with the decision of the High Court.
Recent judgements related to cruelty
Kanwal Kishore Girdhar vs. Seema Girdhar (2024)
In this case, the husband being the petitioner had filed for an appeal being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 09.10.2018. The said appeal was filed in regard to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read along with Section 28 of the Act. This case is a dispute between husband and wife. The husband and wife were married to each other from 09.05.1998 as per the Hindu rites and out of the said marriage two daughters were born. The husband was an army officer, he claimed that the difference between them started to appear after the marriage. The husband filed for divorce mentioning cruelty as the ground and mentioned various instances where the wife had insulted him in front of his friends and family, she stopped helping in the work of the house and she even harmed or assaulted her mother in law.
Not only this, she ended up filing false police reports and made false contentions of adultery against her husband. The wife had tried involving a minor child in the arguments that happened between the two. The husband had filed an appeal seeking divorce from the wife on the grounds of cruelty. He further added that the act of involving the minor child in the dispute between them was totally incorrect. The acts committed by the wife amounted to mental cruelty. The wife in her plea further elaborated that the husband did not pay any attention towards her during her pregnancy and was having an extramarital affair. After considering all the facts, the Delhi High Court was of the view that it was very wrong on the part of the wife to do such acts, especially the involvement of the minor child. The Court even highlighted that there were several attempts at reconciliation on the part of the husband but there was no cooperation on the part of the wife.
Thus the Delhi High Court granted the divorce to the husband for the acts of cruelty executed by the wife against him. The Court observed that it is very common to have fights and arguments in a marriage but the bringing the minor child in between the fights does not justify the acts of the wife. The unsupported and uncorroborated allegations against the husband by the wife display an utmost act of cruelty.
Deepa Tomar vs. Ajay (2023)
In this case, the wife is the appellant and the husband is the respondent and both of them were as per the Hindu customs in Gwalior on 21.11.2011. One daughter was said to have been born out of wedlock. The wife claimed cruelty against the husband which involved both physical and mental cruelty. One of the important facts of the case is that two cases were registered against the husband and he was convicted and a sentence of life imprisonment was pronounced. The wife seeking for divorce had filed a petition in the family court under Section 13(1) of the act and the grounds that were mentioned by her were of cruelty and desertion.
The Family Court had dismissed her petition and being aggrieved by it she filed an appeal in the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The wife claimed that the involvement of the husband in criminal activities and sentenced him for the charge of murder amounted to mental cruelty. The Madhya Pradesh High Court was of the view that it is correct to pass a decree of divorce to the wife because it is important in a marriage that the mental and physical safety is ensured. The acts of the husband here had caused suffering to the wife, so the court dissolved the said marriage between the husband and wife on the grounds mentioned by the wife.
Conclusion
As it can be concluded that there is no proper definition of cruelty. It varies from person to person and from case to case. Cruelty can take various forms, it could sometimes be brutal, even violent and sometimes just verbal and heated arguments. It even highlights that it is important for the lower courts to consider the importance of every piece of evidence and it should be taken into consideration adequately. In this respective case, the lower Court had gravely erred in passing the decision. The Supreme Court while considering the facts and given circumstances stated that they did not find any particular reason or cause to interfere with the decision passed by the High Court and in order dismissed the petition.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the time period within which a petition for restitution of conjugal rights can be filed?
A petition requesting for restitution of conjugal rights should be filed within 1 year from the date of withdrawal from the partner.
Which party has the burden of proof in the case of restitution of conjugal rights?
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner, they need to prove that the other party has deserted and had withdrawn without any justifiable reason or cause.
What does the term cruelty mean under the Hindu Marriage Act?
The term cruelty under the said Act means that the actions or acts of one spouse has created an apprehension of danger in the mind of the other spouse.
What constitutes an act of cruelty?
Imposing irrelevant physical and mental pain on human beings constitutes cruelty. Actions that are deliberate and intentional and cause pain.
References
