caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Joydeep Majumdar vs Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar on 26 February, 2021Author: Hrishikesh Roy
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3786-3787 OF 2020
JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant (Husband).
Also heard Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent (Wife).
2. The challenge in these appeals is to the
analogous judgment and order dated 25.6.2019 in the
Page 1 of 12
First Appeal No. 81 of 2017 and First Appeal No. 82
of 2017 whereby the High Court of Uttarakhand had
allowed both appeals by reversing the common order
dated 4.7.2017 of the Family Court, Dehradun. Before
the Family Court, the appellant succeeded with his
case for dissolution of marriage but the respondent
failed to secure a favourable verdict in her petition
for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. The appellant is an Army Officer with M.Tech
qualification. The respondent is holding a faculty
position in the Government P G College, Tehri with
Ph.d degree. They got married on 27.9.2006 and lived
together for few months at Vishakhapatnam and at
Ludhiana. But from the initial days of married life,
differences cropped up and since 15.9.2007, the
couple have lived apart.
4. Following the estrangement, the appellant earlier
applied for divorce from the Family Court at
Vishakhapatnam. The respondent then filed a petition
Page 2 of 12
against the respondent in the Dehradun Court for
restitution of conjugal rights. Later, when she
learnt of the case filed by the appellant at
Vishakhapatnam, the respondent filed Transfer
Petition (C) No. 1366/2011 before this Court. The
appellant appeared before the Supreme Court and
stated that the case at Vishakhapatnam would be
withdrawn. This Court then recorded the following
order:
“Counsel for the respondent states that
the respondent would withdraw his
petition pending before the Family
Court at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
and in case he has to file any petition
seeking any relief against the
petitioner (his estranged wife), he
will file the petition only before the
proper Court at Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
In view of the statement made at the
Bar, the petitioner is left with no
grievance.
The transfer petition is disposed of.
We may, however, observe that in case
the respondent files a petition at
Dehradun, the Dehradun Court shall take
it up and dispose it of expeditiously
and without any undue loss of time.”
Page 3 of 12
5. In the divorce proceeding, the appellant pleaded
that he was subjected to numerous malicious
complaints by the respondent which have affected his
career and loss of reputation, resulting in mental
cruelty. On the other hand, the respondent in her
case for restitution of conjugal rights contended
that the husband without any reasonable cause had
deserted her and accordingly she pleaded for
direction to the appellant, for resumption of
matrimonial life.
6. The Family Court at Dehradun analogously
considered both cases. The learned judge applied his
mind to the evidence led by the parties, the
documents on record and the arguments advanced by the
respective counsel and gave a finding that the
respondent had failed to establish her allegation of
adultery against the husband. It was further found
Page 4 of 12
that the respondent had subjected the appellant to
mental cruelty with her complaints to the Army and
other authorities. Consequently, the Court allowed
the appellant’s suit for dissolution of marriage and
simultaneously dismissed the respondent’s petition
for restitution of conjugal rights.
7. The aggrieved parties then filed respective First
Appeals before the Uttarakhand High Court. On
consideration of the pleadings and the issues framed
by the trial Court, the High Court noted that cruelty
is the core issue in the dispute. The Court then
proceeded to examine whether the wife with her
complaints to various authorities including the
Army’s top brass, had treated the appellant with
cruelty to justify his plea for dissolution of
marriage. While it was found that the wife did write
to various authorities commenting on the appellant’s
character and conduct, the Division Bench opined that
those cannot be construed as cruelty since no court
Page 5 of 12
has concluded that those allegations were false or
fabricated. According to the Court, the conduct of
the parties against each other would at best be
squabbles of ordinary middle class married life.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the decree for
dissolution of marriage and allowed the respondent’s
suit for restitution of conjugal rights, under the
impugned judgment.
8. Challenging the High Court’s decision, Mr. Gopal
Sankaranarayanan, the learned Senior Counsel
highlights that the respondent had filed a series of
complaints against the appellant before the superior
officers in the Army upto the level of the Chief of
Army Staff and to other authorities and these
complaints have irreparably damaged the reputation
and mental peace of the appellant. The appellant
cannot therefore be compelled to resume matrimonial
life with the respondent, in the face of such
unfounded allegations and cruel treatment. Moreover,
Page 6 of 12
matrimonial life lasted only for few months and the
couple have been separated since 15.9.2007 and after
all these years, restitution would not be justified
or feasible.
9. Per contra, Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, the learned
counsel submits that the respondent is keen to resume
her matrimonial life with the appellant. According
to the counsel, the respondent wrote letters and
filed complaints only to assert her legal right as
the married wife of the appellant and those
communications should therefore be understood as
efforts made by the wife to preserve the marital
relationship. It is further contended that only
because the appellant had filed the divorce case
before the Vishakhapatnam Court and had obtained an
ex-parte order, the respondent was constrained to
write to various authorities to assert her right as
the legally wedded wife of the appellant.
Page 7 of 12
10. For considering dissolution of marriage at the
instance of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the
result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is
not possible to continue with the matrimonial
relationship. In other words, the wronged party
cannot be expected to condone such conduct and
continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of
tolerance will vary from one couple to another and
the Court will have to bear in mind the background,
the level of education and also the status of the
parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty
alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of
marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. In
Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh1, this Court gave
illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty
could be drawn even while emphasizing that no uniform
standard can be laid down and each case will have to
be decided on its own facts.
1 (2007) 4 SCC 511
Page 8 of 12
11. The materials in the present case reveal that the
respondent had made several defamatory complaints to
the appellant’s superiors in the Army for which, a
Court of inquiry was held by the Army authorities
against the appellant. Primarily for those, the
appellant’s career progress got affected. The
Respondent was also making complaints to other
authorities, such as, the State Commission for Women
and has posted defamatory materials on other
platforms. The net outcome of above is that the
appellant’s career and reputation had suffered.
12. When the appellant has suffered adverse
consequences in his life and career on account of the
allegations made by the respondent, the legal
consequences must follow and those cannot be
prevented only because, no Court has determined that
the allegations were false. The High Court however
felt that without any definite finding on the
credibility of the wife’s allegation, the wronged
Page 9 of 12
spouse would be disentitled to relief. This is not
found to be the correct way to deal with the issue.
13. Proceeding with the above understanding, the
question which requires to be answered here is
whether the conduct of the respondent would fall
within the realm of mental cruelty. Here the
allegations are levelled by a highly educated spouse
and they do have the propensity to irreparably damage
the character and reputation of the appellant. When
the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his
colleagues, his superiors and the society at large,
it would be difficult to expect condonation of such
conduct by the affected party.
14. The explanation of the wife that she made those
complaints in order to protect the matrimonial ties
would not in our view, justify the persistent effort
made by her to undermine the dignity and reputation
of the appellant. In circumstances like this, the
Page 10 of 12
wronged party cannot be expected to continue with the
matrimonial relationship and there is enough
justification for him to seek separation.
15. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that
the High Court was in error in describing the broken
relationship as normal wear and tear of middle class
married life. It is a definite case of cruelty
inflicted by the respondent against the appellant and
as such enough justification is found to set aside
the impugned judgment of the High Court and to
restore the order passed by the Family Court. The
appellant is accordingly held entitled to dissolution
of his marriage and consequently the respondent’s
application for restitution of conjugal rights stands
dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.
16. With the above order, the appeals stand disposed
of leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
Page 11 of 12
……………………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)
……………………………………………………J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI)
……………………………………………………J.
(HRISHIKESH ROY)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 26, 2021
Page 12 of 12
Comments