Entering into a second marriage even with the consent of the wife may constitute cruelty: Patna High Court

Partition bench Justices Jitendra Kumar and BB Baganthari note, “As such, even the initiation of criminal cases under Section 498a of the International Criminal Code by the defendant wife cannot be construed as cruelty towards the appellant spouse. Having considered what was stated in the petition, we also find that on the basis of the appellant husband’s admission, he entered In a second marriage, although apparently with the consent of the defendant’s wife.

“However, it is well known that such a second marriage is not tolerated by any wife, and for this reason entering into a second marriage is in itself an act of cruelty towards the first wife which gives reason to live separately and gives cause of complaints under Section 498A of the IPC and on In this way, the submission of the appellant husband’s lawyer that he proved the reason for the cruelty in dissolving the marriage is unfounded.” Added bench.

The above judgment was issued in an appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Chief Judge of the Family Court of Sheikhpura, who rejected the appellant’s application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, filed against his wife.

The case of the appellant husband, as described in the pleadings, revolved around his marriage to the defendant defendant in 1978. The appellant claimed that, with the consent of the defendant’s wife, he entered into a second marriage in 2004. After that their relationship deteriorated, leading to their separation in 2005, and have not lived together since.

In 2010, the defendant wife filed a legal case by filing a complaint under Section 498A of the Islamic Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Chief Justice Court, Sheikhpura. She also filed another criminal case under Article 498A read together with Article 34 of the International Penal Code.

However, the appellant’s husband obtained anticipatory bail in both cases, on condition that he submit Rs. 5,000 per month for maintenance of the defendant wife and additional deposit of Rs. 5 thousand within a year for their daughter’s marriage. The anticipatory bail order also states that both parties will file for mutual divorce after their daughter’s marriage. Following this directive, the appellant deposited Rs. 5 thousand in his daughter’s account, and she got married in 2013.

After the marriage of their daughter, the appellant husband asked the defendant wife to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. However, the defendant wife refused to file for divorce. Thus, the Applicant filed the present application for divorce on two grounds: firstly, on the basis of the commitment made by the defendant wife before the court, and secondly, on the grounds that they have been living separately for more than ten years.

In response, the defendant wife appeared before the Family Court and submitted her written statement, in which she stated that prior to 2004, the appellant’s husband had terminated her pregnancy against her wishes.

The defendant wife admitted that the appellant entered into a second marriage in 2004 without her consent, despite her desire to continue living with him.

However, she claimed to have learned of the divorce application filed by the appellant husband in the court of the District Judge, Munger, without her consent, after filing an alimony claim. She alleged that the application for divorce was filed to avoid alimony payments being made to her.

The main issue was before the court Whether the plaintiff appellant has established grounds for cruelty and desertion to obtain a judgment of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1956 against the defendant wife.

The court noted that the appellant did not raise allegations of desertion or cruelty in his pleadings, and that evidence submitted other than these pleadings could not be taken into account in awarding the compensation sought. Furthermore, it was evident from the evidence that the husband had left his home by himself, not the defendant wife, who had continued to reside in their village.

On the cruelty aspect, the Court found that the appellant did not include any specific allegations in his petition that would legally constitute cruelty under Section 13(I)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court noted that the appellant testified during his main questioning that when he left his house to live in Patna, the defendant’s wife, who remained in their village, mistreated his parents. However, these allegations were not part of the original pleadings and were therefore not admissible as evidence of the grounds for divorce.

In the affirmation, although he asserted that the defendant’s wife had filed two criminal cases against him under Article 498a of the International Criminal Code, he did not assert in the petition or even in his main interrogation that the criminal cases filed by the defendant were false and fabricated. It was introduced in order to harass the appellant’s spouse.” The court added.

“As such, we see that there is no basis for the present appeal to justify any interference with the contested judgment. The Family Court has justly decided to dismiss the matrimonial action filed by the appellant seeking divorce. Accordingly, the present appeal in support of the contested judgment is dismissed. Both parties bear their own costs. Let the decree be issued accordingly. the court concluded.