Animesh Trivedi v.

Kiran Bagai

This case deals with three appeals arising out of two matrimonial title suits, both filed
by Kiran Bagai against Animesh Trivedi. The first, Matrimonial Title Suit No. 53, was filed
in 2006 before the family court in Ranchi pleading for the dissolution of marriage by divorce
on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu
Marriage Act (HMA). The judgement for this suit, allowed the suit in part while granting a
decree for judicial separation in favour of the petitioner, and gave the responden the right to
visit his son on the last Sunday of the month. Two appeals were brought against the
judgement; one by Animesh Trivedi challenging the order of judicial separation and the
second, by Kiran Bagai, challenging the court’s decision to deny a decree of divorce and
instead pass a decree of judicial separation.

During the pendency of these appeals, the second suit, Matrimonial Title Suit No. 178
of 2009, was filed by Kiran Bagai alleging that after the passing of the decree of judicial
separation there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for more than a
year. The court passed a decree of divorce under Section 13(1A)(i) of the HMA.

The third appeal, No. 139 of 2010, was presented by the appellant-husband against
this judgement arguing that the allegation of desertion and cruelty were not made against him
and that he had made all efforts to keep a cordial marital atmosphere with the respondent. He
denied all allegations of mental and/or physical cruelty, that the respondent was thrown out of
her matrimonial house on 08.02.2004, or threatened with dire consequences. He claims that
all the respondent’s claims are totally false and that they cohabited beyond 08.02.2004.
Additionally, arguing that the learned court allowed him to visit his son on the last Sunday of
the month and that the respondent filed Matrimonial Title Suit No. 178 during the pendency
of the appellant’s appeal against the granting of judicial separation, after which the decree of
divorce was granted despite the appellants contesting the Suit No. 178 as premature. He
submitted that he does not want a judicial separation or divorce and would like to lead a
happily married life with his wife.

For the benefit of the Matrimonial Title Suit No. 53, Kiran Bagai pleaded that she was
subjected to mental and physical cruelty from the beginning of their marriage, that the dowry
was an issue. She claimed the appellant was mistreated her on every pretext, repeatedly
hitting her on the head and face claiming that he regretted marrying the respondent and
wanted her pregnancy aborted since he wasn’t willing to have a dumb mother for his child.
He also hit her on her pregnant stomach, taunted her about her driving and refused to spend
money on her essentials. He also repeatedly asked her to leave the house but she did not as
her parents were old and her father was being treated for fourth stage of cancer. On
07.02.2004, Animesh Trivedi hit Kiran Bagai by grabbing her neck, slamming her against the
cupboard resulting in the breaking of her spectacles. After this incident, when her father
realised the state of their marriage he took Kiran Bagai and her infant son to his residence in
Delhi and since then Animesh Trivedi has not paid any money for their maintenance or
livelihood. Kiran Bagai then got a job as Human Resources Manager in Premsons Maruti
Udyog Private Limited, Ranchi.

In response to these allegations and the Suit No. 53, Animesh Trivedi appeared and
filed a written statement admitting marriage, the birth of their son and their cohabitation but
challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ranchi. He also denied all allegations of
cruelty, desertion and assault submitting that he is always taking proper care of his wife and
kids categorically denying causing mental and physical cruelty of his wife

The court framed five issues for consideration;

1. Is the suit, as framed, maintainable?

2. Does the petitioner have cause of action to bring the suit?
3. Was the petitioner subjected to mental and physical torture by the respondent?
4. Did the respondent desert the petitioner and her minor son?
5. Is the petitioner entitled for the reliefs claimed?

The appellant brought four witnesses including himself and the respondent brought nine
witnesses including herself.

On deciding the issue related to the allegation of mental and physical torture as well as
desertion the family court examined the statements of the witnesses while taking into account
that on 08.02.2004, Kiran Bagai was taken to Delhi to her father’s house and information
regarding her informing the Women Cell Authority about the atrocities committed against her
was given to the Joint Police Commissioner Office on 25.05.2004. The petitioner made her
allegations of ill-treatment by the hands of Animesh Trivedi during her pregnancy when they
were staying at the Army Mess for 3-4 months after marriage, mentioning his restricting her
food, taunting her about her driving, dowry and about being a brainless mother. She
explained that due to his mistreatment, abuse and assault she refused his advances for a
second child. She finally deposed that she last cohabited with Animesh Trivedi in Alwar and
after 08.02.2004 never stayed with him despite his visits to Ranchi. She brought nine
witnesses who upheld her version of events.

1. Dr. Lalit Kapoor, her brother-in-law supported her allegations claiming that Animesh
Trivedi often abused her verbally.
2. Raksha Bagai, her mother, also supported her allegations stating that soon after
marriage Kiran informed Raksha of her husband’s abuse and told her that he blames
Kiran for his heart attack. She also supported Kiran’s allegation about the incident
involving the breaking of her spectacles, as a result of which bruises were visible on
her neck and arms.
3. Madhu Gupta deposed that on several occasions she heard Animesh Trivedi shouting
loudly at the petitioner.
4. Gulshan Rai Bagai, a relative of Kiran Bagai, deposed that in September of 2002,
when Kiran had phoned him from Jammu and he questioned her about her well-being
she started crying and reluctantly told him about the mistreatment and abuse of
Animesh Trivedi against Kiran.
Further, he stated that on another occasion in Delhi at their house, he found that her
husband abused her claiming she did not work hard, know how to dress or behave like
an army wife and stated that the biggest mistake of his life was marrying Kiran Bagai
as she ruined his health and social standing.
5. Punit Kumar Poddar, colleague of the petitioner also deposed in support stating that
on one occasion he found that her husband had suddenly come to her house in an
attempt to wake the sleeping child and mother and also slapped her.
6. Sandeep Kaur, another colleague of the petitioner supported her claim that Animesh
Trivedi repeatedly taunted her and called her stupid.
7. The elder sister of Kiran Bagai stated that during Animesh Trivedi’s visit to Ranchi,
the couple visited the sister and on that occasion the respondent stated that the Bagai
family background was uncultured in comparison to his and that was why he did not
like to spend time with her or her family and wished he had married someone else.
She also deposed that on another occasion she watched as Animesh Trivedi lost his
temper after an altercation, slapped and was going to hit her then in her presence
called Kiran Bagai a woman of loose character, stupid, dishonest and ugly.

Animesh Trivedi brought four witnesses.

 1. Uma Devi, mother of the Animesh Trivedi deposed that as far as she knew there was
a good relationship between the couple, stating that both the families have a good
relationship and she liked her daughter-in-law. Also that her son never assaulted her
daughter-in- law.
2. Anurag Trivedi, brother of Animesh Trivedi also deposed that he saw a cordial
relationship between the couple and that after the death of Kiran Bagai’s father, him,
Animesh Trivedi and their mother went to Ranchi to see the family and on that
occasion Animesh stayed with Kiran Bagai in a separate room at her elder sister’s
house.
3. Lt. Colonel Sunil Kumar Gupta, a friend of Animesh Trivedi deposed that there was a
good and cordial relationship between the parties.

Animesh Trivedi also denied the assault, taunting or calling Kiran Bagai lazy as well as
the fact of desertion as alleged by her. He also stated that after 08.02.2004, he met his
wife and lived with her and that during his temporary duty he went out with her,
producing photographs including a photograph showing him and his son in New Delhi.
Animesh further deposed that after the death of Kiran Bagai’s father, he went with his
family to see her family and later also visited Ranchi and spent time with her. He also
submitted photographs of the month of September, 2005 wherein his son is going to
School with both parents accompanying him. During cross-examination, he stated that he
doesn’t want to divorce his wife and would like to live with her.

On the question of cruelty and desertion, the Family Court has arrived at the finding that
Animesh Trivedi had slapped Kiran Bagai on several occasions, using filthy language
towards her, slapped her face while she was driving and hit her on her pregnant stomach. The
Family Court came to the conclusion that the allegations of cruelty are substantiated by the
evidence produced by Kiran Bagai. However, the court was not convinced that she was able
to make a case of desertion on the part of Animesh Trivedi since he was ready to keep Kiran
Bagai as his wife and wasn’t willing to divorce her. The learned Family Court then
considered the educational qualifications and family backgrounds concluding that such acts
done against the appellant are incident of cruelty in a matrimonial relationship since Kiran
Bagai is a well-educated woman from an educated family and raised in such a manner that
Animesh Trivedi’s filthy language was enough to substantiate cruelty. Such violent acts and
using filthy language, in the presence of family members had led to Kiran Bagai being unable
to live with Animesh Trivedi because of the mental and psychological consequences. The
learned family court was satisfied that a case of cruelty had been made out on the part of
Kiran Bagai for which she was entitled to a decree for judicial separation. The learned Family
Court instead of allowing the suit no. 53 for a decree of divorce, proceeded to grant a decree
of judicial separation by allowing the suit in part against Animesh Trivedi. The appellant
failed to point out any issues in this judgement.

After considering that there had been no resumption of cohabitation, the learned Family
Court granted the Matrimonial Title Suit No. 178 of 2009 by issuing a divorce decree under
Section 13(1A)(i) of the HMA, 1955. The court also declared that the parties' marriage had
been dissolved by a divorce decree issued in accordance with the order dated March 20,
2010.

This court found that the judgment passed in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 178 of 2009 did
not have any wrongs and that the appeal is fit to be dismissed. Hence, First Appeal No. 139
of 2010, challenging the decree of divorce under Section 13 (1A)(i) of the HMA, is
dismissed. Accordingly, the First Appeal No. 133 of 2008 is also dismissed on the same
grounds. However, the court deemed it proper that Animesh Trivedi shall have right to visit
and meet his son at least two days in a month i.e. the weekend. He shall also have the right to
visit his son on his son’s Birthday, Holi and Diwali after informing Kiran Bagai prior to
arrival, about the date when he is to come see his son.

I agree with the judgement passed based on the evidences and testimonies given.
However, the reasoning of the court arguing that due to Kiran Bagai’s Family background her
mistreatment by Animesh Trivedi would amount to cruelty implies that if she was of a lower
socio-economic and educational background, the court might have forced her to stay in this
abusive marriage. This sets a dangerous precedent for women, especially poor and
uneducated women as well as dalit women. While women are already disadvantaged in
Indian society and in the courts due to their inability to access good lawyers due to financial
constraints or educational constraints, combined with the reluctance on the part of good
lawyers to represent women, this judgement makes it doubly hard for poor, uneducated and
underprivileged women to receive a positive judgement that could save their lives, or that of
their children, allowing them to live a dignified life as they have the right to do.

The court also examined multiple witnesses that would have a conflict of interest in being
a witness for the parties. For example, two-thirds of Animesh Trivedi’s witnesses were
family members who have an obvious interest in supporting his version of events especially
seeing that the issue of dowry had also become problematic. It is also true that while the court
dismissed the allegation of desertion on the grounds that Animesh Trivedi wishes to live a
happily married life with his wife, the court did not consider the witness testimonies outlining
his frequent and repeated claims about his disdain for his wife, her family and their marriage
and also the fact that his conduct during their time as a married couple clearly opposed his
claims of wanting to keep her as his wife.