Permanent Alimony in Special Circumstances

Naresh Kumar Gupta vs. Smt. Jyoti

Filed Under: Sections 12 (1) (a) and 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant:Naresh Kumar Gupta
Respondent: Smt. Jyoti
Citation: 2005 AIHC 1307
Court: In the High Court of Jharkhand
Judge: Hari Shankar Prasad

Facts

Naresh Kumar and Jyoti’s marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs. About a year later Naresh filed for dissolution and annulment of marriage. He alleged that after their marriage, Jyoti was brought to her matrimonial house and during her stay; she did not talk to anybody, not even to her husband. It was also argued that she would not let her husband touch her and when any indulgence for sex was made by him she would bluntly refuse by saying that she had no interest in such matters. When Naresh, wanted to consummate his marriage with her she slapped him. Thereafter several attempts were made to bring her to normal state of affairs, but there was no improvement in her condition.

The marriage remained unconsummated. A few days after the wedding, Jyoti went back to her family home and her father was informed about her condition. It was stated that Jyoti’s father assured Naresh and his family that he would get her treated. However, there was no improvement in her condition. When Naresh went to get her home, he was refused on the ground that the occasion was not an auspicious one. When Jyoti came back to her matrimonial home, her attitude towards her husband and her in-laws, did not change and she continued to abuse her in-laws. Compelled by the circumstances, Naresh filed a suit for the dissolution and nullity of marriage.

On the other hand, Jyoti denied the allegation of ill treatment and desertion. According to her when she came to her matrimonial house after marriage with her husband, she started her matrimonial life and the marriage was consummated. Her father had met all the demands of dowry made by Naresh who had been given cash amount of Rs. 46,000/- through bank draft as well as 20 tolas of gold ornaments, etc and in all dowry worth about 2 lakhs was given to Naresh’s father. Despite this, he was not satisfied and started demanding a Maruti car and other articles. Jyoti’s father was unable to meet these demands and because of this, she was driven out of her matrimonial home. Jyoti also stated that her in-laws assaulted her and sometimes even food was not given to her.

She further contended that she was a woman of sound mind and had never misbehaved with her husband or in-laws. She was sent back to her father’s house with the warning that she should come back only if she got the Maruti car with her. Ultimately, she went back to her matrimonial home and she stayed there for about two months. A panchayat was also held and in which her husband admitted that he had tortured her and promised that he would mete out proper treatment henceforth. However, things had not improved and she was driven out of her matrimonial home. She had then filed a case under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code against her husband and others.

After careful scrutiny of the evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that Jyoti was not suffering from any mental abnormality and accordingly dismissed the suit. Naresh then field this appeal challenging the judgement of the Trial Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the evidence extended by both the parties. The Court pointed out that neither Naresh’s mother nor father had been examined as witnesses. The Court further held that only such persons had been examined on behalf of Naresh who would have seen things in a casual light. These witnesses did not really know the private details of what took place in the household since they were not living with him. According to the Court Jyoti had not been subjected to any medical test and no evidence had been brought on record which showed that she was suffering from a mental disorder. With respect to the contention that marriage had not been consummated, the Court held that the wife had denied this allegation and therefore nothing could be concluded with this regard.

According to the Court, the evidence given by the witnesses on behalf of Jyoti showed that the demand of the Maruti car and its non-fulfillment was the cause of tense relations between Naresh and Jyoti. On the basis of this evidence, no case for grant of divorce or nullity of marriage was made out.

At the end of the argument, Naresh’s lawyer had stated that since both the sides had been living separately for the past 11-12 years and there was no chance of their living together now, it was better that the prayer for divorce was allowed. The Court considered this argument and held that it was quite clear that Jyoti and Naresh had been living separately for the last 12-13 years and there was no chance of their re-union. Therefore, the best course would be to grant the decree of divorce so that both of them could live their lives in their own way. In light of this reason, the Court allowed the appeal of decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, Naresh was directed to pay rupees one lakh fifty thousand to Jyoti as permanent alimony within a period of three months.

Held:The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Smt. Narinder Kaur vs. Parshotam Singh, AIR 1988 Del 222
  • Muthuraj Koilpillai vs. Esther Victoria Kannammal, AIR 1970 Mad 237