Complete Trust Deficit Between Parties Is A Clear Indicator That Marriage Is Beyond Repair: Delhi HC Grants Divorce To Wife

The Court allowed the appeal filed by a wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty alleging that the parties had been residing separately for the last twelve years and the marriage between the parties had broken down beyond repair.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal observed, “There is a complete trust deficit between the parties, which is evident from the fact that the appellant was constrained to file a complaint case against the respondent which, admittedly, is still under adjudication; a clear indicator that the marriage is beyond repair.”

Advocate Ashutosh appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Sumit Kumar Khatri represented the respondents.

The wife alleged various instances of cruelty stating that her husband was a habitual drinker and gambler. She alleged that the husband’s family members were quarrelsome and abusive towards her and even pressured her to provide dowry.

The wife argued that the parties had been living separately for twelve years and that their marriage had irretrievably broken down. Therefore, the wife submitted that no purpose would be served by keeping the parties bound in a marital relationship.

The Family Court had dismissed a petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife challenged the decision of the Family Court before the High Court while seeking the dissolution of the marriage between the parties.

The High Court noted that the judgment of the Family Court delved into various instances of cruelty alleged by the wife and came to the conclusion that the said allegations were not proved by adducing cogent evidence.

The Bench stated that the Family Court failed to apply the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) wherein it was held that Once the parties have separated and the separation had continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down.

“The Family Court overlooked the fact that the parties had been separated for a continuous period of more than ten years and the marriage was beyond a point of repair,” the Court remarked.

The Court observed that in the present times, there can be no “dishonour” or “stigma” brought upon the contesting spouses or their families upon the grant of divorce.

The Bench explained, “In the present case, both parties are well educated and therefore, it is difficult to digest the argument that grant of divorce would be stigmatic for either of the spouses. On the contrary, the persistent mental agony and trauma that a sour marriage causes upon the parties and their families, is much heavier to bear.”

Consequently, the Court held that the continuation of the marriage would “cause trauma to the parties and would amount to perpetuation of mental cruelty.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: R v. A (Neutral Citation: 2024-DHC-6007-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Ashutosh, Swati Gupta, Monal and Fatima

Respondents: Advocate Sumit Kumar Khatri

Click here to read/download the Order