December 22, 2024December 22, 2024 Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 By Diya Sharma (1st Year Student of Law, Bennett University, Noida) Introduction Hinduism is such a beautiful and colourful culture with people following it worldwide. People follow many customs that each generation has passed down. Hinduism teaches us not only about the ancient scriptures and teachings but also about the weapons mentioned in the Vedas. There are in total four Vedas- the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda, and the Atharveda. These Vedas tell us about the different stages of life such as birth, brahmacharya, vanaprastha, and sannyasa. There are so many customs we follow during our life which start from the moment we exist starting from birth till death be it naamkarana, vivah, cremation, and many more[1]. Marriage, also known as ‘Vivah’ in Sanskrit, ‘Shadi’ in Hindi, and ‘Nikkah’ in Urdu signifies to be as a very sacred bond between two human beings of the opposite gender., Iit is not just a union between two individuals, husband and wife, a man and a woman but in our Hindu culture it is also the union of two different families making them into one as a whole. The scriptures also mention the significance and meaning of Kanyadaan. The process through which the two souls marry is called Saptapadi. Similarly, in 1955, the Hindu Marriage Act was enacted, establishing a single form of marriage with various customs and rituals. Disputes are bound to happen in any relationship, whether with a friend, family member, or life partner, due to differences in opinion, morals, or the way they treat you.. Sometimes it is a mixture of all of them creating a very toxic environment due to which separation from each other is highly necessary, separation means staying away from a person for the time being or in life, but in a marriage when both the husband and wife are un-able to dwell live with each other due to their behaviour or their in laws’ behaviour or some ideology then what will the couple do? If they just do not want to be a liability to each other? Divorce- also known as talaq, is a legal way to end a marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act lays out the process for the registration of marriage which is necessary for it to be legally recognized. If the marriage needs to end, divorce becomes the solution, and we must follow the established procedures to do so. Many times it turns very ugly as well, where one of the parties accuses the other of false claims and stretches the whole case, domestic violence, dowry and whatnot, and then there is another peaceful side where both the husband and wife walk away signing the divorce papers. The Naveen Kohli v Neelu Kohli case has garnered significant attention due to its complex legal proceedings and high-profile nature which include the ground of irretrivable breakdown of marriage in case of divorce. Parties Involved: Petitioner- Naveen Kohli Respondent- Neelu Kohli Date of the Judgment – 21/ 03/ 2006 Bench– B.N. Agarwal, A.K Mathur and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ. Facts Of The Case The appellant – Naveen Kohli got married to Neetu Kohli, the respondent, on 20th November 1975, they both had three beautiful sons out of their marriage. Mr Naveen, who is the appellant constructed three factories so that he could provide it and divide it between his three sons. Ms Neetu Kohli, according to the appellant, has a very rude behaviour and a very bad temper, after their marriage, She started fighting and misbehaving with his parents due to which Mr Naveen- the appellant had to move out and lived in a rented place from May 1994 and later build a bungalow in Nainital for their residence 7/36. They educated their 3 children as well. According to the version of the appellant, the respondent, Ms Neelu in collusion with her parents got sufficient business and property in her name. In 1994, when the appellant alongside the respondent and their three children visited Bombay to go to the brilliant celebration of the golden jubilee marriage anniversary of his father-in-law that’s when he noticed that the respondent was behaving in an obscene way and found her in a compromising situation with one Biswas Rout. Promptly from there on, the appealing party began living independently from the respondent in May 1994. The appealing party experienced extreme physical and mental torment. According to Mr. Naveen, the respondent had withdrawn around nine lakh fifty thousand rupees from the appellant’s bank account and deposited the amount in her bank account. The appellant Mr. Naveen Kohli claimed that the respondent got a false first information report enlisted against him under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 IPC which was enrolled as Case No.156 of 1995. As per him, the respondent again got a case under Sections 323/32 I.P.C. enlisted in the police headquarters in Panki, Kanpur City what’s more, endeavours were made to get the litigant captured. Section 420 basically the representation of cheating and fraud where there is the inducement of delivering the property by dishonest means, 467 says if somebody files a report that claims to be an important security, will, adoption security, or any approval for monetary exchanges or property trades, they can be rebuffed with life detainment or detainment for as long as a decade[1], and may likewise be fined. Section 471 of IPC talks about the usage of forged documents. The Appellant filed a Civil Suit No. 1158/1996 against the respondent. The respondent instructed the appellant to manhandle her. Following this, the eldest child, on the respondent’s orders, filed an FIR (No. 156 of 1996) at the Panki police station, claiming that the appellant had physically beaten her son, Nitin Kohli. The respondent in her statement before the Trial Court had referenced that she had documented a FIR against the appealing party under Segment 420/468 IPC at the Police Station, Kotwali and the respondent had gone to the degree of documenting a proviso in the High Court in regard of the said criminal case so the appealing party may not acquire an order from the High Court against her filing the said FIR. In the same statement, the respondent had admitted that she had filed an FIR No.100/96 at the Police Station, Kohna under Section 379/323 IPC against the appellant. The respondent had also filed a complaint against the appellant and his mother under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC at Police Station, Kohna. The respondent in her statement had conceded that she had gone against the bail of the appealing party in the criminal case recorded at the Police headquarters, Kotwali based on legal advice. In that very articulation she further conceded that after the police had recorded the last report in both the criminal cases connecting with Police headquarters, Kotwali and Police headquarters, Kohna, she had recorded fight petitions in those cases. This clearly demonstrates the respondent’s deep and intense feeling of revenge. The respondent in her statement had also admitted that she had filed a complaint in the Women Cell, Delhi in September 1997. The appellant claims that the respondent filed complaint no. 125 of 1998 against the appellant’s lawyer and friend, accusing them of criminal intimidation, but the accusation was found to be false. According to Naveen Kohli the appellant, the respondent a false petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act under the watchful eye of the Organization Regulation Board, New Delhi and in the testimony of the respondent she expressed that Mr Naveen Kohli was an indecent, heavy drinker, and was having illicit relationships with various young ladies since marriage. She likewise called him a criminal, infidel, forger and her manager to slander his position from the owner to a representative of her organization. The litigant additionally referenced that the respondent recorded a bogus grumbling on the off chance that No.1365 0f 1988 utilizing all sorts of maltreatment against the litigant. On 8.7.1999, the respondent filed a complaint in the Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi and made all efforts to ensure the appellant’s arrest will definitely cause him to go to jail. The police repeatedly called the appellant to the station and interrogated him. After he provided a written reply and the police found the matter to be false, the appellant was able to save himself from imprisonment with great difficulty. On 31.3.1999 the respondent had sent notice for breaking the Nucleus of the HUF, expressly stating that the Family Nucleus had been broken with immediate effect and asking for partition of all the properties and assets of the HUF and stating that her share should be given to her within 15 days. According to the appellant, this act of the respondent clearly broke all relations. The police harassed the appellant a lot and then later arrested him. The respondent admitted in her statement that she published an advertisement in the English National Newspaper Pioneer, stating that he was no longer working as an employee of the organization and that no one from the firm should maintain any kind of relationship with him. The respondent did not deny her using abuses wilfully against the appellant but merely stated that she did not remember or is not able to recall anything. Issues of the Case Did the respondent actually treat the plaintiff with cruelty by registering various criminal cases, publishing the news, and initiating civil proceedings? Whether the defendant treats the plaintiff with cruelty by her objectionable behaviour as stated in the plaint? Whether the respondent has made a false allegation against the plaintiff? If yes, its impact? Whether in the presence of plaintiff, the defendant displayed her behaviour with Dr. Viswas Rout which comes in the category of immorality as has been stated in para 11 of the plaint? If yes, its impact? Whether the defendant engaged in behaviour with Dr. Biswas Rout that falls under the category of immorality, as indicated in paragraph 11 of the complaint, while the plaintiff was present? If so, what was the impact? Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 11, C.P.C.? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of dissolution of marriage against defendant? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief? Judgment The Honourable Supreme Court of India went through and examined the facts, issues and judgements of the High Court and held that – RATIO DECENDENDI The court should dissolve the marriage between the parties according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the extra-ordinary facts and circumstances of the case, to resolve the problem in the interest of all concerned, while dissolving the marriage between the parties, we direct the appellant to pay Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lacs) to the respondent towards permanent maintenance to be paid within eight weeks. This amount would include Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs with interest) deposited by the appellant on the direction of the Trial Court. The respondent would be at liberty to withdraw this amount with interest. Therefore, now the appellant would pay only Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs) to the respondent within the stipulated period. In case the appellant fails to pay the amount as indicated above within the stipulated period, the direction given by us will be of no avail and the appeal shall stand dismissed. In awarding permanent maintenance we have taken into consideration the financial standing of the appellant. Basically, the judgement granted the divorce between the two parties and at the same time ordered the appellant to pay the maintenance of 25,00,000 rupees to the respondent. OBITER DICTA The respondent does not want a divorce by mutual consent. From the analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, it is clear that the respondent has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the appellant as well. The respondent’s adamant and callous attitude, in light of the facts of this case, clearly shows that the respondent is intent on treating the appellant with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again. In view of the fact that the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years and a very large number of aforementioned criminal and civil proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the appellant and some proceedings have been initiated by the appellant against the respondent, the matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. To keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to the public interest than a dissolution of the marriage bond. The High Court ought to have visualized that preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be greater source of misery for the parties. The High Court should have adopted a human approach to properly resolve the issue. In the instant case, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life.” Such powerful words indeed knowing that the respondent Ms. Neelu Kohli did try to actually mentally and physically drain the appellant, Mr Naveen Kohli by filing not only false reports but also the fact that she made their child say something on his mother’s command against his father, that father who built a whole empire or three companies for their sons. We can not even imagine the pain that man as a father would be going through and most importantly after so many years of torture and cases there was no saving their relationship and they were living separately for so many years. There was actually nothing left except for being legally free from each other and starting from scratch. Analysis In the entire judgment of the Supreme Court, the term “cruelty” and “false allegations” stand out, as the respondent filed multiple cases against the appellant. As a result, the police harassed and tortured him with interrogations and numerous complaints, which eventually led to his imprisonment. Now, what do we define as cruelty? Cruelty against a person refers to any behavior that causes physical, mental, emotional, or psychological harm or distress. It involves actions or conduct that are oppressive, abusive, and harsh, resulting in suffering or severe adverse effects on the victim’s well-being. Cruelty can occur in various contexts, including domestic relationships, workplaces, and other social settings, in this particular case there have been so many ways of torture starting from the separation from his parents due to the respondent’s behavior and then even after the decision to live separately, that woman made sure to make his life living hell. Now let us come to false allegations, a false allegation is a claim or accusation made by an individual that is not based on fact and is intended to mislead or deceive others. These allegations are knowingly fabricated or made with reckless disregard for the truth, and they can cause significant harm to the person against whom they are directed. What else more of an explanation is needed for anyone here? Just to get satisfaction going to such an extent that getting the other person arrested, falsely accused, defamed by the newspaper advertisement then multiple FIRs, and at last making your child speak against the parent, is just another level of cruelty. Conclusion Law is a set of rules and regulations which has to be generally accepted by the people to be enforceable in a state or a nation. What is the law of this land might not be the law of another. Basically what is criminalized here in our country might not be in another. The law of the land is something that guides everything and everyone taking power from the constitution and applying it to the people and the parliament. The people of the nation, country, or state are the ones choosing their leader, and the leaders work for the people, by the people, and to the people. In our country, there are laws for almost everything, environmental law, civil procedure, the constitution, family law and so much more. Similarly, there is the Hindu Marriage Act laying down such beautiful rituals for uniting two souls of opposite gender and their families, Saptapadi is one of them which is an important step for any marriage in Hindu culture there which symbolizes the presence of the gods and there is a promise two of them are respecting each other and always staying beside of one another. What an irony that many Indian families do not absolutely care for that and just move according to their family or will., Dowry is one of the reasons why the husband’s family demands money from the bride’s family, harassment for the same sometimes the behavior of the husband and his family is a major reason and at last many are breaking these why? Some women have also been the reason why the husbands have to live separately from their parents as well why? All because the wife wants to live separately and they start fighting or getting abusive within their parameters which is also not good. One of the instance is the case of Naveen and Neetu Kohli where the respondent Ms Neetu Kohli did everything in her ability to make sure that Mr Naveen did not live a peaceful life. multiple FIRs, false FIRs, court cases, criminal liabilities, arrests, harassment and torture by the police, advertisement in a newspaper and then asking their son to give a false statement against his father. That definitely as a human with empathy anyone could see the torture he was going through and the son giving out such a statement was a cherry on top. The work of the Judiciary is to provide justice to the people and the work of the laws is to guide how to achieve that, but did the justice actually get served? If someone asks me then no, justice did not get served properly as after such observations made by the justices even after the victim had to pay the maintenance, and not only that he did not even get any compensation for it from the respondent the good thing was both of them getting the divorce but the maintenance is something I can and will never understand. But at the same time, we cannot forget the fact that the laws are there. Yes but they have to be amended over time as well according to the people and the changes around them, seriously letting such a woman who tortured someone so much over the years with the aim of vengeance should not be roaming freely. We never know what kind of atrocities can she commit and its not like this is the only case. There have been several cases after this particular one with similar situations but usually it’s the men who even after being held innocent have to give out the maintenance to the woman, that doesn’t make any sense but again the judiciary follows what is written by the law and follows that only, the amendment has to come out soon or in this kind of cases an innocent will have to suffer the court fees itself is a huge burden. A right is something that we are born with and have to cherish just as we grow. Laws were basically made around independence over time it should evolve as well studying the human behaviour and changing ideologies. [1] Appeal(Civil) 812 of 2004 [1] “Vedic Marriage Ceremony” SN Shastri – Vedanta Part I. Post Views: 114 Related Case Analysis