Matrimonial dispute alleging demand for dowry, harassment and torture must be substantiated with clear and cogent documentary evidence or witness accounts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Division bench comprising of Rajiv Sharma and Alok Singh, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of Family Court, granting a decree of divorce, for want of substantiation of the appellant-wife’s allegations against the respondent-husband.

Facts of the case were that marriage was solemnized between the parties as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Immediately after their marriage, a few differences cropped up between them and the appellant/ wife left the matrimonial home after seven months of marriage as she wanted to stay away from her in-laws. The respondent was working in Indian Army and posted in Kanpur. In order to maintain peace in his marital life, he took the appellant along with him to Kanpur where they stayed in the government-allotted quarters. However, their disputes continued and in the meantime, respondent got transferred to Arunachal Pradesh. He could not take the appellant along with him over there due to duty restrictions and sent her back to his parents’ home. After two months, the appellant left her matrimonial home and made complaints to the superior officers of respondent; pursuant to which the respondent/ husband sent her a legal notice to stop harassing him. Thereafter, the appellant along with her parents threatened to implicate him in a dowry case and filed a case under Section 125 CrPC. The respondent also filed a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was decreed vide impugned judgment.

The High Court perused entire evidence on record and noted that there were several inconsistencies in the appellant’s statements – on one hand, she stated that she wanted to live with her husband and on the other hand, she stated that she has a threat to her life from him. Further, the appellant had failed to produce any witness or documentary evidence in support of her bare allegations of harassment, torture, and demand for dowry. While she contended of having complained to the respondent’s senior officers at Kanpur, no copy of the complaint was filed by her. She also alleged demand for dowry, harassment and that her husband wanted to have a second marriage but had failed to substantiate all of her allegations.

As such, the High Court opined that the Family Court had appreciated and discussed the evidence on record elaborately and there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment. On this holding, the instant appeal was dismissed. [Sangeeta Bhakuni v. Pushkar Singh Bhakuni,2018 SCC OnLine Utt 868, decided on 28-09-2018]

2 comments

  • No comments only compliment. Thanks to the honorable Court for the decision announced and helped a man who was correct and not favoured an incorrect woman and balanced and defined that no both the sexes are equal in the eyes of law. At least they are not following the Mr. Chief Justice of India and his four friends who have found a way to destroy Indian families by deleting 377 and 497. I have never ever expected that such a foolish order can also be given in our country by the top officials who do know very well that what impact has already been seen of section 498a. How the girls are misusing the law. But I will pray to god especially for these top officials who don’t have the mind in their head that their wives do the same with them find another man to satisfy there lust. And then they will understand when a man loves his wife and children and see his house scattered and destroyed in front of his own eyes what it looks like and how it feels just because a woman needs to satisfy her extra physical needs.

    • i can understand your frustration but till date the man had the freedom to commit Adultery without the fear of any punishment if he had it with an unmarried female.
      Even with a married female, only the female’s husband could file a case against him.
      This wife with this order stops being the property of her husband but becomes an individual just like he is.
      You see brothels for men not for women plus its always been the males in majority who have sought pleasures outside of their marital home even leaving their wives and children in pursuit of it.
      However, I am totally in favour of the above given judgement as be it male or female, no one should be given undue advantage on the basis of their gender.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.