# Smt. Sneha Pandit v. Shri Tarun Pandit

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 769
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-29
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 212 of 2018
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sneha-pandit-v-shri-tarun-pandit-47865
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13(1)(ib) - Divorce on the ground
of desertion - Desertion, in its essence,
means
the
intentional
permanent
forsaking and abandonment of one spouse
by the other without that other's consent,
and without reasonable cause - Court on
the basis of acts, conduct and expression
of intention by the parties, both prior to
and subsequent to the actual acts of
separation, can draw an inference from
the proven facts and circumstances that
the deserting spouse had the intention to
bring cohabitation permanently to an end,
without the consent of the deserted
spouse - For the deserted spouse, it is
required to be proved that the act of
desertion was without his consent and
there was no such conduct of the deserted
spouse giving reasonable cause to the
spouse (deserting spouses) for leaving the
matrimonial home to form the necessary
intention
to
bring
cohabitation
permanently to an end (Para 51)

B. Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13(1)(ib) - Divorce on the ground
of desertion - Mere act of withdrawal of
the wife from her matrimonial home at the
Air Force station, Ambala and the factum
of separation of the wife for a period of
two years from her husband when she
was making efforts to pacify her husband
with the help of the family in order to
bring matrimonial harmony cannot lead to
the conclusion that the wife had no
intention to lead a normal married life
with the husband or her act of leaving her
matrimonial home was in absence of any
conduct of the husband (respondent)
giving the wife (appellant) a reasonable
cause to form the necessary intention
aforesaid (Para 60)

C. Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13(1)(ib) - Divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty - before the conduct can
be called cruelty, it must touch a certain
pitch of severity - It is for the Court to
weigh the gravity - It has to be seen
whether the conduct was such that no
reasonable person would tolerate it - Mere
trivial
irritations,
quarrels
between
spouses, which happen in day-to-day
married life, may also not amount to
cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be
of unfounded variety, which can be subtle
or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mere silence, violent or non-violent (Para
70)

D. Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13(1)(ib) - Divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty - criminal case lodged by
the wife cannot be a reason to grant
divorce on the ground of cruelty and the
family court had acted illegally in holding
that even filing of the application for
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by
the wife would come within the meaning
of cruelty - apart from moving the
application for maintenance and seeking
restitution
of
conjugal
rights,
the
appellant wife did not initiate any criminal
proceeding nor insituted any adverse legal
action against her husband so as to put

## Text

_Characters 0–39,927 of 126,340. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39927 for what follows._

11 All. Smt. Sneha Pandit Vs. Shri Tarun Pandit
769
move an application for cancellation of bail
before this court.

51. Identity, status and residence
proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the
bonds are accepted.

52. The trial court is directed to
conclude the trial against the applicant as
expeditiously as possible, preferable within
a period of one year as per Section 309
Cr.P.C from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

53. Registrar (compliance) is directed
to communicate this order to the court
concerned within a week.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 769
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

First Appeal No. 212 of 2018

Smt. Sneha Pandit ...Appellant
Versus
Shri Tarun Pandit ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondent:
Shri Amit Krishna, Sri Alok Tiwari, Sri Anil
Sharma

A. Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13(1)(ib) - Divorce on the ground
of desertion - Desertion, in its essence,
means
the
intentional
permanent
forsaking and abandonment of one spouse
by the other without that other's consent,
and without reasonable cause - Court on
the basis of acts, conduct and expression
of intention by the parties, both prior to
and subsequent to the actual acts of
separation, can draw an inference from
the proven facts and circumstances that
the deserting spouse had the intention to
bring cohabitation permanently to an end,
without the consent of the deserted
spouse - For the deserted spouse, it is
required to be proved that the act of
desertion was without his consent and
there was no such conduct of the deserted
spouse giving reasonable cause to the
spouse (deserting spouses) for leaving the
matrimonial home to form the necessary
intention
to
bring
cohabitation
permanently to an end (Para 51)

B. Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13(1)(ib) - Divorce on the ground
of desertion - Mere act of withdrawal of
the wife from her matrimonial home at the
Air Force station, Ambala and the factum
of separation of the wife for a period of
two years from her husband when she
was making efforts to pacify her husband
with the help of the family in order to
bring matrimonial harmony cannot lead to
the conclusion that the wife had no
intention to lead a normal married life
with the husband or her act of leaving her
matrimonial home was in absence of any
conduct of the husband (respondent)
giving the wife (appellant) a reasonable
cause to form the necessary intention
aforesaid (Para 60)

C. Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13(1)(ib) - Divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty - before the conduct can
be called cruelty, it must touch a certain
pitch of severity - It is for the Court to
weigh the gravity - It has to be seen
whether the conduct was such that no
reasonable person would tolerate it - Mere
trivial
irritations,
quarrels
between
spouses, which happen in day-to-day
married life, may also not amount to
cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be
of unfounded variety, which can be subtle
or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mere silence, violent or non-violent (Para
70)

D. Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13(1)(ib) - Divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty - criminal case lodged by
the wife cannot be a reason to grant
divorce on the ground of cruelty and the
family court had acted illegally in holding
that even filing of the application for
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by
the wife would come within the meaning
of cruelty - apart from moving the
application for maintenance and seeking
restitution
of
conjugal
rights,
the
appellant wife did not initiate any criminal
proceeding nor insituted any adverse legal
action against her husband so as to put
her relations in peril, till the divorce suit
was filed by the respondent - conclusion
drawn by the family court that all the
abovenoted acts of wife had resulted in an
act of 'cruelty' caused upon her husband
is, contrary to the evidence on record
(para 96)

E. Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13 - Divorce - Irretrievable break
down of marriage - decree of divorce
cannot be granted unless grounds as
indicated u/s 13 of the Act' 1955 are
established - Irretrievable break down of
marriage is not a ground for divorce under
the Act' 1955 - In the instant case, both
spouses (wife aged about 35 yrs old & the
husband 39yrs), came from respected
families
and
were
well-educated
-
bitterness developed between them and
their families due to the ongoing legal
battles - husband consistently refused to
live with his wife - Considering the whole
issue from human angle, physiological
point of view of both the spouses, Court
concluded that the matrimonial bond was
beyond repair - there was no chance of
their coming together or living together
again - It was held that given their
education and background, if they are
freed from the marital bond, they may
have a chance to lead happier and more
constructive lives - refusing to severe the
marital tie does not serve the sanctity of
marriage - Such a situation may lead to
mental cruelty of both the individuals and
hamper positive progress and ultimate
happiness in life - Under those compelling
circumstances,
their
marriage
was
dissolved and parties give a chance to
move on from this dead relationship (Para
109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115)

F. Civil Law - The Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - Section 25 - Permanent alimony
and maintenance- Appellant, wife of an
Air Force Officer, couldn't pursue her
career due to her husband's resistance &
due to marital obligations - she completed
her B.Tech and pursued further education
during their two-year separation but the
legal battle with her husband prevented
her from finding a job - Court held wife is
entitled to permanent alimony - Given the
husband's social status & the aspirations
of the appellant wife to lead the life of the
wife of an Air Force Officer, Court held
that
she
deserves
Rs.
1
Crore
as
permanent alimony, in addition to what
she has already received as interim
maintenance (Para 116, 117)

G. The Family Courts Act, 1984 - Role of
family court judges - Role of family
court judges is not only of adjudicators
but they are facilitators in matrimonial
disputes where perception of a judge
about gender issues plays a major role
in his decisions - Family Court judges
have to be gender sensitive - To evolve
as a Family Court judge, a person has to
be gender neutral, gender sensitive,
open to the social changes to have a
mature thinking - Court recommend that
gender
sensitization
program
be
especially designed and held for the
Family Court Judges in the State of U.P.
(Para 125)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. A. Jayachandra Vs Aneel Kaur AIR 2005 SC
534

2. Vishwanath Sitram Agarwal Vs San. Sarle
Vishwanath Agarwal 2012 (7) SC 288
11 All. Smt. Sneha Pandit Vs. Shri Tarun Pandit
771
3. K. Srinivas Vs K. Deepa 2013 (5) SCC 226

4. Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya Ghosh 2007 (4) SCC
511

5. Shamim Bano Vs Asraf Khan 2014 (7) SCC
740

6. K Srinivas Vs K. Sunita 2014 (16) SCC 34

7.Dinesh Nagda Vs Santibai AIR 2012 MP 40

8.Manisha Srivastava Vs Rohit Srivastava 2015
(2) ADJ 547

9. Devesh Yadav Vs Smt. Minal FAO-M 208 of
2013

10. Joydeep Majumdar Vs Bharti Jaiswal
Majumdar 2021 SCC 3 742

12 Dr.(Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D Vs Dr. B.V . Ravi
M.D 2014 (7) SCC 640

13. Vinit Saxena Vs Pankaj Pandit 2006 (3) SCC
778

14. Vishwanath Agrawal, s/o Sitaram Agrawal Vs
Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal 2012 SCC (7) 288

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J. & Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani
(Thakur), J.)

1. This is wife's appeal against the
divorce decree prepared pursuant to the
judgment and order dated 21.2.2018,
passed by the family court in a suit
instituted under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act' 1955 (hereinafter referred as
Act'
1955),
namely
the
Matrimonial
Petition No. 1614 of 2013, by the
respondent-husband.

Introduction:-

2. The divorce petition was filed on
27.11.2013 on the grounds of cruelty and
desertion. As per the statement therein, the
parties got married on 22.11.2009 and at
the
time
of
marriage,
the
respondent/petitioner was working as a
Fighter Pilot in the Indian Air Force and
was posted as Flight Lieutenant in Badmer,
Rajasthan. It was stated therein that for few
days after marriage, the appellant went to
stay with the respondent to the place of his
posting but she could not adjust herself.
The appellant wife was studying the B.Tech
(Electronics
and
Instrumentation
Engineering) course at the time of marriage
and with the inspiration of the respondent
husband, she could complete her studies.
But after getting the degree, the appellant
started pressurizing the respondent to allow
her to take up a job in the NCR namely
Delhi/Noida/Gurgaon region. It was further
stated in the divorce petition that the family
members of the appellant and the appellant
herself were clearly informed by the
respondent husband at the time of marriage
itself, that she would not be allowed to take
up any employment because of the nature
of the job of the respondent and the
appellant-wife and her family members had
agreed to the said condition put before
marriage. It was contended therein that
while
putting
pressure
to
take
up
employment
in
a
place
like
Delhi/Noida/Gudgaon, the appellant wife
became annoyed and started quarreling
frequently with the respondent. With a view
to get the respondent dismissed from
services of the Indian Air Force, the
appellant started complaining to higher
Officials of the Force and this attitude of
the appellant had resulted in undermining
the position of the respondent and he had
suffered indignation. The appellant started
committing cruelty both physically and
mentally upon the respondent. On account
of the ill-behaviour of the appellant, the
respondent
who
was
working
as
a
Squadron Leader, Flying MIG-21 and other
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fighter jet, started suffering mentally and
physically and did not remain in the
position to discharge his responsibilities to
his full potential and devotion in the
interest of the Nation. All efforts made by
the respondent/petitioner and his family
members to pacify the appellant went in
vain and she remained adamant with her
demands. On account of her attitude only,
the appellant could not conceive (bear a
child) and the respondent and his family
members had suffered mental stress also
due to the said reason.

3.

On
23.11.2011,
while
the
respondent/petitioner was on duty, in his
absence, the brother of the appellant and
one more person came to their house at
Ambala Cantt. and, in execution of their
pre-conceived plan, all valuables, jewellery,
clothes, cash, diamond sets, F.D., ATM
cards, bank passbooks etc. were collected
by the appellant and she started making
preparations for going to her parent's home
at Meerut. At that point of time, on an
intimation given by the wife of an Officer
who was a neighbour, the respondent came
to his house from the duty at around 2:00
P.M. and saw that the appellant alongwith
the above two persons had already kept her
luggage in a car and was ready to go to
Meerut. All efforts made by the respondent
to persuade the appellant (wife) proved
futile and the appellant started misbehaving
with him, remained adamant and left the
respondent (husband) as against his wishes
to go to her parent's home. The information
of this incident was given by the
respondent to his parents, who also went to
the house of the appellant at Meerut and
tried to persuade her. It was stated that the
appellant refused to listen to anyone and
remained adamant on her demand that she
wanted
to
take
up
a
job
in
Delhi/Noida/Gudgaon area and if the
respondent wished he could leave his job to
live with her, which was not possible for
the respondents.

4. It was further stated in the petition
that after 23.11.2011, despite best efforts
made by the respondent and his family
members to persuade the appellant and her
family members, no possible solution could
come out and the appellant remained
adamant and refused to discharge her
marital obligations. It is finally stated that
on account of the above attitude of the
appellant, her behavior, use of abusive
language, the respondent had suffered
severe mental stress and indignation at the
hands of the appellant which undermine his
position in front of his superiors, resulting
in mental cruelty committed upon him. Due
to the attitude of the appellant, the
respondent
could
not
undertake
examination
for
promotion
and
his
promotion got delayed. By the action and
behaviour of the appellant, respondent had
suffered severe mental stress which came
within the meaning of 'cruelty' under the
legal parlance. For her personal motives,
the appellant had deserted the respondent
for a period of more than two years which
also fell within the meaning of 'cruelty'.

5. It was further contended therein
that despite all efforts made by the
respondent, the appellant did not agree to
grant divorce by mutual consent and hence,
the respondent was constrained to file the
divorce petition. The cause of action for
filing the divorce suit arose on 22.11.2009
when the appellant while living with the
respondent had committed cruelty on him
by all means and started pressurizing him
to agree to her demand to take up a job in
NCR and also on 23.11.2011 when she had
left for her paternal home along with her
brother as against the wishes of the
11 All. Smt. Sneha Pandit Vs. Shri Tarun Pandit
773
respondent and lastly on 25.11.2013 when
she had refused to live with the respondent.

6. The appellant in her written
statement had denied all the allegations
levelled in the divorce petition and only
accepted the factum of marriage. The plea
of desertion had been categorically denied
with the assertion that the appellant had
filed a restitution petition under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act before the
competent court registered as Case No. 993
of 2013, which was pending and in the
Mediation proceedings also, the appellant
had expressed her wishes to go along with
the respondent and live with him as his
wife. It was further stated therein that the
appellant was still ready and willing to live
with the respondent and discharge her
wifely duties.

7. It was further contended that in the
month of February, 2013, both the parties
spent time together as husband and wife
and mental as well as physical relationship
were
established
between
them.
On
5.7.2013, the appellant went to her in-law's
house and stayed there till 8.7.2013 in an
effort to save her marriage. But she was left
by the said relatives of the respondent at
her paternal home giving her assurance that
they would call her very soon. It was stated
in the written statement by the appellantwife that she was always ready and willing
to live with the respondent and discharge
her responsibilities, even after 23.11.2011
and the plea of desertion without any cause
or reason on her part was false.

8. A disclosure had been made therein
that the appellant-wife had lodged a
criminal case under Section 498-A, 323,
504, 506, 377 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act on
account of ill behaviour of the respondent
and physical assault made on her, which
was registered as Case Crime No. 84 of
2014 at the Mahila Police Station, Meerut.
However, she was ready and willing to
forgive the respondent and live with him as
his wife.

Opinion of the Family Court:-

9. Three witnesses were examined
before the family Court, respondenthusband as PW-1, appellant-wife as DW-1
and mother of the appellant as DW-2.
Various documentary evidences were filed
by both of the parties in support of their
stand before the family court.

10. The family court on the basis of
the pleadings of the parties framed
following issues for determination:-

(i) Whether the marriage solemnized
between the parties is liable to annulled on
the ground of cruelty by the defendant
appellant?

(ii)
Whether
the
defendant
had
deserted the plaintiff without any reason?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff respondent
is entitled to any other relief?

11. On issue no.1, the family court
concluded that the act of the appellant wife
in making complaint to higher officials of
the Air force, the assertive behaviour of the
wife pressuring the respondents frequently
to go out of the Air Force station, her act of
filing of the criminal cases against the
respondent husband and institution of the
case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite
getting maintenance from the department
making a reckless allegations against the
respondent that he was not appearing in the
case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act' 1955, false allegations levelled against
the husband of unnatural sexual assault, the
allegations of SMS of other girls on the
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mobile set of the respondent and character
assassination of the respondent on the part
of the wife amounted to mental cruelty. In
such a situation, it was not possible for the
respondent husband to spend his life with
the appellant wife. The issue No.1 on the
ground of cruelty by the wife had been
decided
in
favour
of
the
plaintiff
respondent.

12. While coming to the aforesaid
conclusion, the family court has discussed
that the unreasonable demand of the wife to
go out of Air Force Station as against the
disciplined life of a Squadron leader and
insisting to take up job at places like Delhi,
Noida and Gurgaon (NCR) became a
vindictive act on the part of the wife which
had resulted in causing physical and mental
cruelty to the husband. It was also noted
that when the respondent husband did not
accede to unreasonable demand of the
appellant wife, she in order to get him
dismissed from service made complaints to
higher officials of the respondent which
had resulted in derogation of the position of
the husband and undermined his dignity.

13. It was also noted by the family
court that the wife had filed a criminal case
under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 377
IPC and Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act making
reckless and false allegations against her
husband. A petition under Section 9 of the
Act' 1955 was also filed by the wife with
the aim to make out a case against the
husband. On the final report submitted by
the Investigating Officer in the criminal
case lodged under Section 498-A and
Dowry Prohibition Act, a protest petition
was
filed
by
the
respondent
wife
whereupon re-investigation was ordered by
the competent court. The Investigating
Officer again submitted a final report,
whereafter, another protest petition was
filed by the wife. False cases under the
Domestic Violation Act and Section 125
Cr.P.C. were filed though the appellant wife
was getting interim maintenance from the
department, itself. The allegations made in
the first information report lodged by the
appellant wife were taken note of by the
family court to record a finding that the
appellant wife had failed to establish the
allegations made by her and all those acts
of the wife had caused mental agony to the
respondent plaintiff. The respondent being
a Squadron Leader in the Air Force could
not discharge his duties properly as his
mental peace was shattered at the hands of
his wife.

14. On issue No.2 about desertion, it
was recorded by the family court that the
appellant admitted that she had left the
place of posting of the respondent husband
on 21.11.2011 alongwith her brother Mohit
Dixit and cousin Sushil Sharma. In a
complaint filed by the appellant wife to the
superior officers of the Air Force Officer, it
was stated that the marital discord between
the parties was of such nature that no
reconciliation was possible between them.
As a result of it, the department had
ordered
for
payment
of
interim
maintenance to the appellant wife. It is,
thus, recorded by the family court that once
the wife herself went to the senior Air
Force Officer making a statement that
marital
discord
between
them
was
irreparable, her statement that she had
discharged her marital obligation up till
February 2013 was contradictory. The act
of the appellant wife in going to the place
of posting of the respondent in January
2016 after filing of the divorce petition was
viewed with suspicion by the family court
to record a finding that there was no
justification for the appellant wife to go to
the place of posting of the respondent
11 All. Smt. Sneha Pandit Vs. Shri Tarun Pandit
775
husband when she herself was making
allegations of assault by her husband by
filing a criminal case against her husband.
The said act of the appellant wife was
aimed to fulfill her other ulterior motives. It
was concluded that there was no reason to
accept that by doing so, the appellant wife
was making an effort for reconciliation and,
moreover, there was no possibility of both
the parties living together.

15. It was, thus, concluded by the
family court that in view of the admission
of the appellant wife that she was residing
separately w.e.f 21.11.2011, the period of
two years of desertion on the part of the
wife, at the time of filing of the divorce
petition
on
27.11.2013
having
been
completed, desertion on the part of wife
was proved. The issue No.2 with regard to
the desertion by the wife was, thus,
concluded in favour of the respondent
husband.

16. With the aforesaid findings, a
decree of dissolution of marriage wef
21.02.2018 was passed by the family court
giving permanent alimony of Rs.25 lacs to
the respondent wife.

Submissions of the Counsels for the
appellant:-

17. Challenging the findings returned
by the family court, Sri Siddharth Khare
learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the respondent husband had filed the
divorce petition on the trivial issues. The
allegations of cruelty were reckless in
nature and the family court had ignored that
the respondent himself was causing cruelty
on his wife and was trying to take
advantage of his own wrong by filing the
divorce petition. It was argued that the
allegations in the divorce petition that the
respondent
husband
encouraged
the
appellant wife to complete the B.Tech
course and the appellant was adamant to
undertake an employment in Delhi, Noida,
Gurgaon (NCR) against the wishes of the
respondents are itself contradictory. Further
contention in the divorce petition that the
respondent at the time of marriage itself,
made it clear that the appellant wife would
not take up employment after marriage is a
reflection of male chauvinism. The only
allegation against the appellant wife was
that she was pressing hard and insisting to
take up employment outside the Air Force
Center.

18. The contention is that the
allegations in the divorce petition of the
complaint made by the appellant wife to the
Senior Officers of the Air Force could not
be proved by the respondent husband,
rather the truth is that on 23.11.2011, the
appellant wife was thrown out of her
matrimonial house at Ambala Cantt by the
respondent husband. She had to call her
brothers who could reach in the evening to
rescue her as the respondent did not allow
the appellant to enter inside the house. It is
argued that the appellant wife has taken a
categorical stand that she made all efforts
of reconciliation by meeting her in-laws
and even went to stay with them for three
days in July 2013, but the respondent did
not meet her before the divorce petition
was filed by him. It is then argued that the
allegations in the divorce petition that the
first information report under the Dowry
Act and Section 498-A IPC was lodged on
false allegations and the act of the appellant
wife in filing protest petitions against the
final reports twice had caused cruelty, is
nothing but a whimsical approach of the
family court in dealing with the entire issue
with
pre-determined
mind
and
preconceived approach against the appellant.
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The submission is that the
respondent
husband,
in
his
crossexamination, had admitted that he did not
make any effort for reconciliation and
never visited his wife after 23.11.2011 who
was living with her parents at Meerut till
the matter was brought before the family
court
in
the
divorce
petition.
The
contention is that this is a classic case of
desertion of the wife by her husband on
some trivial issues and then filing the
divorce petition on false allegations of
cruelty. It is argued that the conclusion
drawn by the family court both on the
grounds of cruelty and desertion cannot be
sustained. The appeal is liable to be
allowed while setting aside the divorce
decree granted by the family court.

20. Reliance is placed on the decision
of this Court in First Appeal No.31 of 2007
to submit that the element of 'cruelty'
cannot be found from the allegation made
in the divorce petition. Mere trivial
quarrels, normal wear and tear of the
married life which happens in day to day
life would not be adequate for grant of
divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. It
is argued that there is no instance of any act
or conduct of the appellant wife which
could be said to have caused injury to the
mental health of the plaintiff.

21. The contention is that in absence
of any pleadings in the plaint, the divorce
could not be granted on the ground of
commission of cruelty because of the
allegation of false criminal proceedings
instituted by the wife against the husband.
The contention is that there is absolutely no
allegation in the divorce petition which
amounts to cruelty by the wife.

Submissions of the Counsel for the
respondent:-

22. Sri Amit Krishna learned counsel
for the respondent, in rebuttal would submit
that the respondent was constrained to file
divorce petition in November 2013 when
all efforts of reconciliation between the
parties failed. The respondent and his
family members met the appellant and her
family members on several occasions after
23.11.2011 when she had left the house of
the respondent at Ambala. Many efforts
were made by the family members for
reconciliation between the fighting couple
but the appellant remained adamant on her
demand and was not ready to discharge her
matrimonial obligations. The act of the
appellant in making complaints to Senior
Officials in the Air Force had caused
bitterness in the mind of the respondent.
This act of the wife had seriously hampered
the career prospects of the respondent and
his image/status was brought down in the
eyes of his seniors. He argued that on
23.11.2011,
the
wife
had
left
her
matrimonial house at Ambala alongwith his
brother and a relative in the presence of the
respondent husband and did not accede to
his request to stay with him. She had also
filed the criminal case on false allegations
of demand of dowry and other atrocities
wherein final reports were submitted twice
by the Investigating Officer and protest
petition on both the occasions were filed by
the wife just to harass the respondent
husband.

23. It is, thus, argued that the stand of
the wife that she was ready and willing to
reside with her husband to discharge her
matrimonial obligations runs contrary to
the stand taken by her in filing the criminal
cases. The allegations in the criminal cases
caused mental agony to the respondents so
much so that restoration of marriage is
totally unworkable which has seized to be
effective and would be a greater source of
11 All. Smt. Sneha Pandit Vs. Shri Tarun Pandit
777
misery for the parties. The marriage
between the parties had broken down
irretrievably and there is no chance of their
coming together or living together again.
As an instance of mental cruelty, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent that the act of the wife in
pressurizing the respondent to allow her to
take up jobs in NCR (Noida, Delhi,
Gurgaon) and to reside outside the Air
Force Station, caused mental agony to the
husband who had made it clear in the
beginning of the alliance itself that being a
fighter pilot he has to stay at the Air Force
Station and according to the norms of
social life of an Air Force Officer, the
appellant his wife, had to stay with him.

24. The complaints made by the wife
to Senior Officials of the Indian Air Force
had resulted in harassment and torture to
the husband as his character and reputation
at his workplace was brought down.
Making such complaints is sufficient to
constitute mental cruelty caused by the
wife.
The
career
prospects
of
the
respondent had been seriously hampered as
he could not get promotion in time. The
respondent was, thus, constrained to file the
divorce
petition
and,
thereafter,
the
appellant in order to harass him moved the
Air
Force
department
for
interim
maintenance with the assertion that marital
cord between them was completely broken.
At the same time, she filed a criminal case
under the Dowry Act, 498-A, 323, 504, 506
& 377 IPC on reckless and false
allegations. Her complaint was found false
and a final report was submitted by the
Investigating Officer on 17.04.2015. The
appellant filed a protest petition wherein an
order for re-investigation was passed.
Again a final report was submitted on
02.02.2016 by the Investigating Officer
when protest petition was filed by the wife.
A case under Section 9 of the Act' 1955 was
also filed by the appellant in the year 2013
wherein she had admitted that there was no
relationship of husband and wife between
them from 23.11.2011 onwards and the
couple had never lived together thereafter.
The contention is that the act of the
appellant in filing application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance
though
she
was
already
receiving
maintenance from the department; lodging
of the false FIR; filing protest petitions
after submission of final reports by the
Investigating Officer, on one hand, and
moving petition under Section 9 of the Act'
1995, on the other, shows her dubious
character. Her statement that she was ready
and willing to forgive all previous issues
and would live with the respondent
peacefully cannot be substantiated from her
conduct and actions.

25. It is further pointed out that the
appellant went to the Air Force Station in
January 2016 without any reason and tried
to enter forcibly in the house of the
respondent when a report was given to the
Superintendent
of
Police
and
the
Commanding Officer, Air Force by the
respondent.
It
is,
thus,
argued
that
consideration in the totality of the conduct
and
behaviour
of
the
wife
clearly
established that she had caused mental
cruelty upon her husband by making
unreasonable demands, complaints to the
Senior Officials, filing of false criminal
cases and then pressurizing the respondent
to live with her, and make out a clear case
of mental cruelty caused by the wife. The
result is that it is not possible for the
respondent
to
continue
with
the
matrimonial
relationship
in
the
circumstances like this. The respondent, a
wronged party, cannot be expected to
continue with the matrimonial relationship
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and there is enough justification for him to
seek separation.

26. Reliance is placed on the
judgement of the Apex Court in A.
Jayachandra
vs.
Aneel
Kaur1,
Vishwanath Sitram Agarwal Vs. San.
Sarle Vishwanath Agarwal2, K. Srinivas
vs K. Deepa3, to submit that the mental
cruelty as discussed in the aforesaid
decisions has to be culled out on
consideration of complete matrimonial life
of the parties. The illustrations given by the
Apex Court in Samar Ghosh vs Jaya
Ghosh4 have been taken note of therein to
record as to what may amount to mental
cruelty. The
submission
is
that
the
circumstances of the present case are all
covered in the decisions noted above and
having gone through the same, it can be
safely concluded that the act of the
appellant caused mental cruelty to the
respondent.

27. Further judgements of the Apex
court in Shamim Bano vs Asraf Khan5, K
Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita6; Dinesh Nagda
Vs. Santibai7, Manisha Srivastava Vs.
Rohit Srivastava8; and a judgement of the
High Court of Delhi in the Family Court
Appeal, dated 10.03.2022 have been placed
before us to assert that false complaints of
demand of dowry or any criminal nature
results in harassment and torture to the
husband and can be construed as mental
cruelty within the meaning of Section 13
(1) (ia) of the Act' 1955. Further the
decision in Devesh Yadav S. Smt. Minal9
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana and
the Apex Court judgement in Joydeep
Majumdar vs Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar10
have been pressed into service to argue that
derogatory complaints made by the wife
affecting the career progress of the husband
amounted to cruelty.

Analysis of Evidence:-

Allegations
from
marriage
to
separation
between
22.11.2009
till
23.11.2011.

28. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, we may note
certain factual aspect of the matter at the
outset. There is no dispute between the parties
that their marriage was solemnized on
22.11.2009 and at the time of marriage, the
respondent was a fighter pilot in the Indian Air
Force and was posted as Flight Lieutenant in
Badmer, Rajasthan. Both the parties lived
together till 23.11.2011 at different places of
the posting of the respondent. Though the
allegations of the respondent is that the wife
lived with him reluctantly and was adamant to
take up employment at a place like Delhi,
Noida and Gurgaon (NCR) after she had
completed B.Tech course. The respondent also
stated that the wife was studying B.Tech at the
time of marriage and she could complete the
course after marriage with the support of the
respondent.

29. Though there are assertions in the
divorce petition that the wife being annoyed
by the denial of the respondent to permit her to
take jobs in NCR, started making complaints
to the higher officials of the Air Force, with the
aim and object of getting the respondent
removed from service but there is not a single
instance of any oral or written complaint made
by the wife to Senior Air Force officers prior
to 23.11.2011, i.e. during the period when she
was living with the respondent at the Air Force
station. The averments in this regard in the
affidavit of the respondent filed in his
examination in chief are vague.

30. In cross, the respondent as PW-1
stated that his wife made false complaints
while staying at the Air Force Station
11 All. Smt. Sneha Pandit Vs. Shri Tarun Pandit
779
Uttarlai and then stated that it was an oral
complaint. He further admitted that no
written complaint was given by the wife at
the Air Force Station Uttarlai. On a further
query, he stated that on the oral complaint
of the wife, no written explanation was
called from him by his senior officers. He
also admitted, in cross, that there is no
mention of the oral complaint made by the
wife at the Air Force Uttarlai either in the
divorce petition or in his affidavit filed in
the examination in chief. A suggestion was,
thus, given to the respondent that the
statement with regard to the oral complaint
made by the wife was made only to give
colour to the case. Apart from the bald
allegation of one such complaint, no
specific allegation of any complaint made
by the wife before 23.11.2011 when she
had allegedly left her matrimonial home on
her own volition, was made or proved by
the respondent.

31. As regards the allegations of the
respondent that the wife after completion of
B.Tech course was adamant to take up a job
at NCR, it may be noted that the statement
in this regard has been categorically denied
by the wife in her written statement and
stated in the examination in chief that after
marriage she was residing with her husband
at the place of his posting and as a result of
it, her visits to Meerut were very few. She
was
discharging
wifely
duties
and
obligations.

32. In cross, the appellant stated that
the respondent was posted in Uttarlai,
Rajasthan, she went to live with him and
undertook a job for three months inside the
Air Force centre with the consent of her
husband.
When
her
husband
was
transferred to Ambala she had quit the job.
In the entire cross-examination of the
appellant, she has not been confronted on
her alleged demand to take up employment
in NCR namely Delhi, Noida and Gurgaon
after completion of the B.Tech course. The
stand of the respondent in the complaint
that the dispute between them after
marriage began on account of the demand
raised
by
the
wife
to
undertake
employment outside the Air Force Station,
especially in NCR, could not be established
by the respondent. As per the respondent,
the appellant left her matrimonial home on
23.11.2011. Prior to 23.11.2011, since after
marriage, only allegations against the
appellant was that she was not agreeable to
stay with her husband (respondent) at the
place of his posting, at the Air Force
Station and being B.Tech qualified she was
insisting to take up employment, leaving
the respondent alone at the Air Force
Station, though categorical clarification
was given by the respondent at the time of
the marriage that looking to his status, the
wife would not allow to do job after
marriage. The assertion of the respondent is
that when the respondent refused to accede
to the request of his wife/appellant to go
outside the Air Force Station to take up a
job, she started making his life hell and
made complaints to higher officials of the
Indian Air Force. The family members and
the respondent himself tried to persuade the
appellant but she did not listen to anyone.
For this part of the allegations made by the
respondent, from the above analysis of the
evidence on record which is oral, none of
the allegations noted above could be
proved by the respondent.

33. The relationship, however, took an
ugly turn on 23.11.2011, when the
appellant went to her paternal house
alongwith her brother and cousin. The
stand of the respondent in the divorce
petition is that on the said day, i.e. on
23.11.2011 while the respondent was on
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
duty,
in
his
absence,
the
appellant
alongwith his brother Mohit Dixit and one
other person, in a planned manner collected
all
valuables,
jewelry,
clothes,
cash,
diamond set, FD, ATM card, bank pass
book and started making preparation to go
to Meerut to her parent's home. The
respondent got information through a
neigbour and reached at his house at around
02.00 PM. He then saw that the appellant
alongwith his brother and another person
was ready to go to Meerut and her entire
luggage was kept in the car. The respondent
did his best to persuade the appellant not to
leave him but she started misbehaving with
the appellant in front of other people
collected on the spot and did not listen to
anyone and left her matrimonial home in
order to desert the respondent against his
wishes. Narrating the incident occurred on
23.11.2011, the appellant wife, however,
stated that her husband had deserted her
since 23.11.2011 without any reason and
the respondents refused to keep her with
him as his wife.

34. In her cross-examination, the
appellant stated that on 23.11.2011 she was in
the house of her husband (her matrimonial
home) at Ambala till evening. Her husband
was on duty but came home early. She called
her brother Mohit Dixit and cousin Suhil
Sharma as her husband threw her out of the
house and despite repeated requests, he did
not allow her to enter inside the house. She
called her brother through telephone in the
afternoon and her brother and cousin reached
around evening.