IN THE COURT OF SH. S. KUMAR
PRINCIPAL JUDGE , FAMILY COURTS, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI
HMA NO. XX/18
IN THE MATTER OF:
Manas … Petitioner
Sheela …. Respondent
OH : 13.10.2020
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS / SYNOPSIS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT MRS. SHEELA
It is respectfully submitted as under:-
- That the petitioner categorically states in his cross – examination dated 03.11.2018 (after 3rd line from above) – “ I sustained injuries on 27.06.2014 as assaulted by the parents of the respondent and her brother. The injury was inside the body which was not visible that is why MLC was done at that time. I have not filed the said MLC along with my petition in this case. The father namely Mr. Avadh Kumar and two brothers Raju and Nikhil were standing near the house and assaulted me on the aforesaid date.” Interestingly enough, he further states at the same place of cross – examination that he has not mentioned this fact in his evidence by way of affidavit and voluntarily says that he has mentioned the aforesaid facts in his petition. As a matter of fact, no such incident is mentioned even his Petition. A prima facie lie is visible here as the petitioner in the same sequence of cross-examination says under again said line – the brother of the respondent only assaulted and I was caught by her father and another brother.
- That the petitioner categorically stated in his cross examination dated 03.11.2018 that – “My parents did not reach at my rented accommodation on the day of the incident dated 27.06.214” Quite contrary to this fact, PW3 Sh. Babu Ram , father of the petitioner deposes in para – 12 of his examination in chief that – “ When I reached at the rented house, I found the PCR and her parents also at the spot I do not know how her parents reached there…”
- That in para 7 of the petition an incident dated 09.10.2011 is mentioned where it is alleged – “ They started leveling false and frivolous allegations of dowry demand against them. The respondent’s brother also tried to assault petitioner.” Petitioner has made a very nice improvement in his cross – examination dated 03.11.2018 (Second line of Second page from above) – “The father and brother Raju of the respondent along with one relative i.e. Rajender Prasad gave beatings and assaulted me on 09.10.2011 in the presence of my parents and wife. Mr. R.K. Sharma intervened in this matter and tried to sort it out but aforesaid persons threatened me and my family members and went away. Mr. Sharma is one of the witness in the witness list filed before the Hon’ble Court.” Quite contrary to this presentation of the petitioner , 2 R.K. Sharma in his cross examination dated 25.04.2019 ( Second page Second line) says the quarrel was verbal.
- That on the night of 27 -28 of June 2014 the respondent wife in a critical condition was taken to Lal Bahadur Shashtri Hospital, Delhi because her left wrist was slit with knife. The lie of the petitioner has reached its highest position when he says in para 17 of the petition (Second line) – “ The father and brother of the respondent and also respondent started beating , abusing the petitioner in the presence of his friends and relatives and threatened him..” The same fact was reiterated in para 18 of the Petitioner’s Evidence by way of affidavit. However in his cross-examination dated 03.11.2018 petitioner states completely different facts at this point of the alleged incident – “ In the night of 27.06.2014 , while I was in the hospital at about of 12:00 A.M. where I was again assaulted by my mother –in – law and sister –in – law namely Sunita and they had abused me sexually.”
- That in support of his case the petitioner examined Radha Kishan Sharma as PW2 who has not at all supported the facts of the petitioner, rather shown his complete ignorance in this matter. PW2 R.K. Sharma himself as a witness did not know what to say in this matter as at one place of cross examination dated 25.04.2019 ( Second page) says – “I know the petitioner’s family since 2011. “When he is contradicted with his Examination in Chief , he states – “It is correct that I have mentioned in my affidavit that I know petitioner’s family for last 30 years.”
- The petitioner strategically entered into a compromise on 20.01.2014 just to clear the complaints filed by the respondent before different authorities against him. It is submitted that as per his devil plan , he took a rented accommodation separately from his parents in the house of K.R. Gupta who is his neighbor and misguided this court that it was due to the condition of the respondent for settling the matter. Petitioner in his cross examination says that – “ No such statement of the respondent has been mentioned in the compromise order but the same condition of the respondent has been mentioned in CAW Cell in the closing statement. I have not filed the said copy in this case.” However PW3, father of the petitioner says in his cross examination dated 27.05.2019 (page3 of cross) – “ It is correct that my son started living in neighborhood in a rented house. Vol. It was because of court direction under Section 9 HMA petition. I have not filed the said order before this Court. It is wrong to suggest that no above order passed by any court. These facts show that the petitioner is playing with words without factually supporting his stand through evidence and hence misguiding this Hon’ble court on the point of legal facts.
- That the petitioner is not with clean hand before this court when he says in his cross examination that – “ I have no joint account with my wife anywhere.. I have not got insured my wife. I have not opened any account of my wife in any bank.” The petitioner and his family members are greedy and had been torturing the respondent for the fulfillment of their demand of dowry. That is way the petitioner did not care for her intentionally.
- That the petitioner has concealed many things in his income affidavit which is again the proof of his being unclean before this Hon’ble Court. In his cross examination dated 30.05.2018, the petitioner states – “ It is correct that I have written NA in my affidavit pertaining to appointment letter and salary slip. I have given the details of other tow accounts in my DVA case pending in Saket Courts, however I have mentioned in my income affidavit three accounts but neither the account number nor the name of the banks have been given. It is correct that I have not mentioned my fourth bank account in income affidavit. I have enclosed my details of bank account , passbook etc. in the DVA case.” It might be first case of it nature where the petitioner wants decree of divorce from this Hon’ble Court and refers his filing of all details and documents in DVA case and very boldly admits it without making it a matter of mistake.
- In an FIR No. 626 , P.S. Badarpur, U/s. 498A / 406 / 34 IPC dated 24.10.2014 petitioner and PW3Babu Ram are co-accused and hence being an abettor , the PW3 is not supposed to be a reliable witness of the petitioner in the instant case.
- That the petitioner has a very unique way of fighting case as the PW3 Sh. Babu Ram , the father of the petitioner who claims to be the author of many complaints before authorities against respondent says in a very light mood in his cross examination dated 27.05.2019 (Starting line of first page of cross examination) that – “ I have the originals of Mark 7 and 8 but today I have not brought the same…. I have sent the complaint to the police from time to time in this matter. I can show the complaints which have been given to the police.” Interestingly enough, he is not ready to show all these documents at the time of evidence and wish to get decree of divorce in a lighter mood which is never the mandate of family law.
- That neither in the petition nor in the affidavit by way of evidence, the petitioner has mentioned any incident of his getting beaten by the father and brothers of the respondent and preparing of any MLC in this regard, however in on page 14 of the List of Documents annexed with the petition in a police complaint dated 30.06.2014 he writes on page 15 ( Second para) – “ Sir, I have every apprehension that they knowing hatching the conspiracy against me to implicate me in false case, even on 27.06.2014, Shri Raju and Awadh Kishore assaulted me very seriously hence my MLC was also conducted but neither any report was registered nor my MLC has been taken into account.” Interesting enough, on page 20 of the list of document in another police complaint dated 23.08.2014, petitioner mentions one more person namely Nikhil Prasad as assailant and writes (second page) – “On the same time I was also beaten by my father in –law Sh. Awadh Kishore and my brother in – law, Raju Prasad and Shri Nikhil Prasad due to which I was also medically examined and my MLC was also prepared but neither any report was registered nor my MLC has been taken into account.”
- That the petitioner in para 16 (last line) has misguided this Hon’ble Court regarding a medical fact and says that MLC of the respondent also mentioned that the “Injuries are self inflicted” which in fact in nowhere mentioned in the MLC.
- That on 26..09.2012 the father of the petitioner Sh. Ram has made a complaint of theft against respondent (page3 of List of document of the petitioner) and made allegation therein that the respondent has taken her daughter with her and also her all jewelries / istridhan and other valuable items and also Rs. 60,000/- in cash. However It is quite surprising that the father of the petitioner wrote letter dated 05.04.2013 to Akhil Bhartia kharwar Mahasabha (Page 8 of List of document annexed with the petition) and mentioned all facts except this jewelry and theft of Rs. 60,000/.
- That the issues involved in this matrimonial case for divorce are trivial ones. A question was asked to the PW3, father of the petitioner regarding bone of contention between spouses and a very interesting answer came in his cross examination dated 27.05.2019 (starting lines of page 3) – “ The petitioner and respondent after marriage for about 2-3 months remained happy. The respondent was not used to cooperate with my son and my family. The respondent used to use Tu Tarak language on small issue with petitioner. The brother , sister and other relatives used to come at matrimonial home of respondent in our absence…” It is necessary to consider the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard which has categorically stated in many judgments that no divorce can be granted on the ground of wear and tear of family life. Had it not been the wear and tear of family life , the spouses would not have entered into a compromise before court on 20.01.2014 and the petitioner would not have filed Petition No.XX/2013 under Section 9 of HMA for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of HMA at Karkardooma Court.
- A petitioner, in order to get a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, is required to prove that he or she has been treated with cruelty by the other side. If discussed in the light of depositions of the petitioner and his witnesses there is not an iota of evidence to show that the petitioner i.e. the husband was treated with cruelty by the respondent. PW2 R.K. Sharma claims to be the witness of verbal quarrel between the family of the two and says that respondent wife was not quarrelling. The father of the petitioner says in written complaint to PS. Mayur Vihar phase one dated 12.10.2011 (page 2 of list of document) – “ Mahoday main is patra ke madhayam se apko suchit krna chahta hu ki mujhe apni bahu se koi shikayat nhi h. main ar mera pariwar us se bahot khush hain aur meri bahu v mere ghar me bahot khush hai.” That the petitioner-husband failed to establish that he was treated with cruelty by the respondent-wife. Therefore, the petitioner failed to substantiate the ground taken by him for seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage.
- The expression cruelty has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The petitioner has made a false case of cruelty on the ground that the respondent inflicted injuries to herself. So this stand of petitioner turns his case into a mental cruelty which has totally different parameters to be judged. As a matter of fact , the petitioner has inflicted injuries to the respondent and is facing criminal trial in FIR No.502/14 registered at P.S. Pandav Nagar Under Sections 324/315 IPC. Hence he can not take the benefit of his own wrongs by proving metal cruelty against him.
- At the Point of Section 23 (a) of HMA
No one can take the benefit of his or her own wrongs
The Wrongs of the petitioner :-
- Petitioner is an accused for his criminal acts committed on 27.06.2014 in FIR No.XX/14 registered at P.S. Pandav Nagar Under Sections 324/315 IPC and is facing trial at Karkardooma Courts.
- Petitioner and his family members are involved as accused persons in FIR No. XX , P.S. Badarpur, U/s. 498A / 406 / 34 IPC dated 24.10.2014 and facing trial at Saket Courts, New Delhi
- Petitioner and his family members are also facing a case under DV Act, 2005 before Metropolitan Magistrate at Saket Court, New Delhi.
- The complaints were filed by respondent against the petitioner and his family members in CAW Cell, Sriniwas Puri , Delhi on 23.07.2014 and in Delhi Mahila Aayog on 20.10.2014
- At the Point of Section 23 (b) of HMA
Condonation of Alleged Cruelty by the petitioner
- In his cross examination dated 03.11. 2018 (last line) , petitioner states that – In 2014 a compromise took place between me and my wife on 20.01.2014 at Karkardooma Court. After compromise dated 20.01.2014 , the respondent was not living properly. After compromise I along with my wife went to CAW Cell to withdraw the complaint filed by my wife. Any alleged acts of cruelty prior to the this compromise at Karkardooma Court have no legal consideration as enumerated in Section 23(b) of Hindu Marriage Act. So the Hon’ble court is supposed to see only post compromise incidents and allegations of cruelty between parties and then only to decide whether the ground of cruelty is made out or not.
- That on 31.07.2013, the petitioner filed the Petition No.778/2013 under Section 9 of HMA for Restitution of Conjugal Rights where a settlement arrived. Filing of a case of Restitution of Conjugal rights under Section 9 of HMA is itself the proof that no cruelty has been committed by the respondent against the petitioner and his parents and the petitioner is willing to resume the close conjugal relationship. Even if the allegations of cruelty mentioned in the petition are taken as true for the sake of argument, the petitioner has condoned the cruelty during that period by his acts in bringing her back to the matrimonial home and living with her. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get a decree in his favour in view of Section 23(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 which stipulates that if the Court is satisfied that where the ground of divorce petition is cruelty, the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty, the Court shall decree such relief accordingly.
- A Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nirmala Devi Vs. Ved Prakash , AIR 1993 HP 1, following the judgment of the Apex Court in N.G. Dastane Vs Mrs S. Dastane has held that the petition for condonation of restitution of conjugal rights obviously implies the condonation of all earlier acts of cruelty and it was a mandatory duty cast upon the Court to consider whether the petitioner spouse has condoned the acts of cruelty or not. The Court considered the meaning of the word condonation and the impact of filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In Dastane Vs. Dastane SC observed in para 54 “……..Even though condonation was not pleaded as a defence by the respondent it is our duty, in view of the provisions of S.23(l)(b), to find whether the cruelty was condoned by the appellant. That section casts an obligation on the court to consider the question of condonation, an obligation which has to be discharged even in undefended cases. The relief prayed for can be decreed only if we are satisfied ‘but not otherwise’, that the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty….”
- At the point of the production of the photocopy documents and their admissibility
- The petitioner has not brought on record the original of most of the document relied upon by him so same were not even seen by the Hon’ble court in the course of recording evidence. Reliance could be placed on, Shubhash Harnarayanji Laddha Vs. State of Mahrashta 2 SCC (Cri.) 122to contend that if the relevant documents are not produced or the documents produced are not proved, the contents thereof would be wholly inadmissible in evidence.
- In J. Yashoda V. K. Shobha Rani , AIR 2007 SC 1721 SC hold that copy of a document can be received as evidence under the head of secondary evidence only when the copies made from or compared with the original are certified copies or such other documents as enumerated in Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was further held that secondary evidence as a general rule is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other condition as provided for in this section.
- Thus law is very clear at this point that the photocopy cannot be treated to be the document unless it is admitted as a secondary evidence following the provision laid down in the In the instant case , the petitioner is trying to prove his case on the basis of photocopy evidence even without even putting it as secondary evidence following the provisions laid down in the evidence or getting the permission of this Hon’ble Court in this regard.
- The testimony of the petitioner witnesses suffers from great contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations and embellishment in material particulars creating doubts in its truthfulness. The petitioner has not proved his case at all as per the requirements of family law. He is trying to get the benefit of his own wrongs and misguiding the court to get the decree of divorce.
- That a daughter aged about 8 years was born out of this wedlock on 01.04.2012 which is the humanitarian ground to be considered by this Hon’ble Court as the reunion of the parties may result into a very happy and caring life for the child and her future.
- Hence considering the above mentioned facts of case and provisions of law, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to dismiss the petition of the petitioner filed for grant of divorce on the false ground of cruelty.
(Avinash Nandan Sharma)
Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court of India
New Delhi. Mobile – 8800794128
Date : 30.09.2020
AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON:
- Nirmala Devi Vs. Ved Prakash , AIR 1993 HP 1, Himachal Pradesh High Court
- G. Dastane Vs Mrs S. Dastane, 1975 AIR 1534
- Shubhash Harnarayanji Laddha Vs. State of Mahrashta 2 SCC (Cri.) 122
- J. Yashoda V. K. Shobha Rani, AIR 2007 SC 1721 SC