MAMATA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. TARESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern First Appeal (M) No. 51 of 2007 and First Appeal No. 199 of 2003, the result and the fate of which depends upon the determination of the core question i.e. the meaning and import of the expression "cruelty" as a matrimonial offence.

(2.) Admittedly, the Appellant Mamta Shrivastava was married to Respondent-Taresh Shrivastava on 9-12-2001 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Bemetara. Parties lived together as husband and wife till 18-7-2002. The application Under Section 9 of the Act was filed on 28-8-2002 by the Appellant for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that 15 days after the marriage, the Respondent started treating her with cruelty while they were living in a rented house at Awadhia Para, Raipur and his family members also threatened to kill her. Despite being informed promptly, the Respondent did not come to her rescue, as a result of which, after lodging report in Manila Police Station on 18-7-2002. She returned to her maternal home. The Respondent took no steps to take her back in the marital fold. The Respondent had denied the allegations and pleaded that the Appellant had refused to live in the house at Purani Basti, Raipur with his parents and pressurized him to live separately, due to which he shifted to a rented house at Awadhia Para, Raipur. While the Respondent was on tour, the Appellant would unnecessarily threaten him on the telephone that she would take some drastic steps unless he deposits Rs. 1 lakh in her name in the bank. The Appellant also attempted suicide by cutting the veins. She had also thrown her Mangalsutra. She would behave in an abnormal manner by removing clothes and throwing utensils. She would always threaten to leave the house. On 17-7-2002, she quarrelled with the landlord and report was lodged against her at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur. When the Respondent returned from tour on 19-7-2002, the landlord informed him that the Appellant had left the house. In this manner, the Appellant was continuously treating him with cruelty.

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge, Bemetara after appreciating the evidence held that the Appellant-wife had, without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the Respondent. It also took into consideration the fact that the Respondent herein had to face mental agony due to a report Under Section 498-A of the IPC lodged by the Appellant against him. The Respondent and his family members had to seek anticipatory bail. It also took into consideration that the Appellant had received the articles given by her parents at the time of the marriage from the Respondent. In para 29, it was held that the Appellant herein had inflicted mental cruelty on the Respondent by continuously threatening to commit suicide. On these premises, it dismissed the application Under Section 9 of the Act filed by the Appellant herein. In Case No. 51-A/2006, the Respondent herein had pleaded that after the marriage, the Appellant forced him to live separately from his parents. Despite succumbing to her request and living in a rented accommodation, the Appellant used to scratch her body with bangles and attempted to commit suicide by cutting veins of her hand. This frightened the Respondent. On one occasion, the Appellant threw her Mangalsutra and put it only after apology was tendered by the Respondent. She used to threaten to leave the house. She was so arrogant and used to pretend eating mosquito coil and would threaten to commit suicide by jumping from the terrace. She also threatened the Respondent to implicate him and his family members in a dowry case. On consultation a psychiatrist opined that she was an old mental patient. The Appellant refused to cook and do household work and quarrelled time and again with the Respondent who was required to bring food from hotel. A demand for Rs. 1 Lakh by the Appellant had put the Respondent completely out of place. Despite reconciliation sessions in Mahila Police Thana, the Appellant did not improve her behaviour. Upon report of the Appellant Under Section 498-A of the IPC the Respondent and his family members were required to seek anticipatory bail. The Appellant made complaints against the judges who were seized of the matter. On her application, the articles which were given at the time of marriage were also returned to the Appellant. The conduct of the Appellant had lowered the social image of the Respondent and his family members. Father of the Respondent faced utter humiliation and had to apply for voluntary retirement which was also published in the newspaper. The Appellant was capable of taking any extreme step to humiliate and torture the Respondent.