The Delhi High Court has dissolved marriage between a couple living separately for 12 years observing that the wife had filed an unsubstantiated criminal complaint against the husband and his family members which caused them immense mental cruelty and agony.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case:
Marriage of the parties was solemnised in May 2008 and a son was born out of the wedlock in June 2009.
The case of the appellant husband is that on 04.01.2010, the respondent wife unilaterally left their matrimonial home with the child, without informing or seeking the appellant’s consent. On the same day, the appellant along with his brother and mother went to his in-law’s residence at Vaishali, Ghaziabad, with the aim to bring the respondent back. However, she flatly refused to come back to the matrimonial home.
Following this, there was a physical altercation between the appellant and his brother on one side, and the respondent’s brothers on the other side. These experiences led to immense bitterness in the relationship between the parties.
It has further been submitted that for more than one and a half years from 04.01.2010, there was no direct communication or contact between the appellant and the respondent, or even their families. On 06.07.2011, the appellant sent a legal notice, demanding the respondent to rejoin her matrimonial home, and resume their conjugal relationship. However, the respondent neither rejoined her matrimonial home, nor responded to the legal notice.
Troubled by this, on 20.08.2011, the appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, in Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
The appellant further submitted that after receiving the notice of the appellant’s petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, rather than joining the appellant back, the respondent filed a complaint dated 10.10.2011 before the Crime Against Women (hereinafter referred to as CAW) Cell, Krishna Nagar, Delhi alleging harassment due to dowry demand and domestic violence, amongst others. As per the appellant, the complaint before the CAW Cell was a counter blast to the appellant’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court whereby the petition seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the appellant husband, was dismissed.
The Bench was of the view that there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties and that the marriage was irretrievably broken down. It also noted that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the matrimonial bond and the insistence to continue the relationship would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties. The Court said,
The marital discord between the parties at present is such that there is a complete loss of faith, trust, understanding and love between the parties. The conduct of the Respondent (wife) has been such as to cause great mental anguish to the Appellant (husband), and the parties cannot be reasonably expected to live with each other anymore.
The Court was of the view that the conduct of the appellant showed that, at least, till the time he filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, he wanted to make the marriage work. However, it noted that the wife did not resume cohabitation or join husband in the matrimonial relationship. To this the court noted,
Rather, the respondent filed a complaint before the CAW cell alleging dowry demand, threat to life, and harassment at the hands of the appellant and his family members.
The same allegations were reiterated in the reply to the section 9 petition, where the CAW cell complaint was also annexed. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court said that the conduct of the wife not only demonstrated a clear intention on her part to desert the husband, but also her lack of sensitivity to the physical and emotional needs of the husband. The Court added,
After nearly two years of leaving the matrimonial home, and three years of the marriage, the respondent filed a complaint on 10.10.2011 before the CAW Cell, Krishna Nagar, Delhi against the Appellant and his family members, alleging dowry demands, abuse, physical and mental torture and harassment, amongst other cruelties. These allegations remained unsubstantiated.
The Court was of the view that the allegations were not established and the same amount to a clear and categorical character assassination of the husband as well as his family members.
Observing that the Family Court ignored the said aspect of the matter, the Court said:
Moreover, the appellant had to make 30-40 visits to the police station in connection with the said complaint. A police station is not the best of places for anyone to visit. It must have caused mental harassment and trauma each time he was required to visit the police station, with the Damocles Sword hanging over his head, and he not knowing when a case would be registered against him and he would be arrested.
So far as the respondent is concerned, she had done everything to get the appellant and his family entrapped in the criminal case. That was also her prayer in her complaint.
The Delhi Court even added said that the wife could not justify not returning to the matrimonial home, and her refusal to cohabitate with the husband was sufficient to establish desertion by her. Thereby while dissolving the marriage, the court held,
In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a case of being subjected to cruelty and desertion at the hands of the respondent.
We are unable to agree with the findings of the Family Court. That the appellant is entitled to succeed on both the grounds i.e. Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib).
Accordingly, the plea was disposed of.
ALSO READ –
Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Man’s Appeal After 12-Years Separation Since Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Not Grounds For Divorce
SC Dissolves Two-Month Marriage After 16-Yrs | Invokes Irretrievable Breakdown As Ground For Divorce
Supreme Court Grants Divorce To Husband On Grounds Of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage After 22-Yrs
READ JUDGEMENT | Consent Of Spouse Not Necessary Under Article 142 | Supreme Court Grants Divorce To Husband After 22-Years Of Separation
READ JUDGEMENT | Mental Cruelty To Husband If Wife Refuses Divorce Even After 21-Years Of Separation; Karnataka HC Dissolves Marriage With Rs 30 Lakh Alimony
ALSO WATCH –
Irretrievable Breakdown in Marriage As Grounds for Divorce | Interview With SC Lawyer Prateek Som
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
Blogging about Equal Rights for Men or writing about Gender Biased Laws is often looked upon as controversial, as many 'perceive' it Anti-Women. Due to this grey area - where we demand Equality in the true sense for all genders - most brands distance themselves from advertising on a portal like ours.
We, therefore, look forward to your support as donors who understand our work and are willing to partner in this endeavour to spread this cause. Do support our work to counter one sided gender biased narratives in the media.
To make an instant donation, click on the "Donate Now" button above. For information regarding donation via Bank Transfer, click here.
Follow Us
