Wife’s Insistence For Husband To Abandon His Parents And Become A 'Ghar Jamai' Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi HC Grants Divorce
The Delhi High Court allowed the Appeal of a husband seeking a divorce from his wife on grounds of desertion and cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court noted that the Wife-Respondent had filed false cases against the Appellant under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Domestic Violence Act, which constitute mental cruelty against the husband. The Court further observed that Respondent's demand for the Appellant to leave his own parents and move in with them amounts to cruelty.
The bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “Further, it has come in the evidence that the case under Section 498A/406 IPC has ended in acquittal of the appellant. The respondent had claimed that she was being beaten and subjected to acts of cruelty, but has not been able to substantiate it with any incident. The making of false complaint in itself is an act of cruelty”.
The Court, in para 13 noted, “Thus, the insistence of the family of the Respondent for the Appellant to abandon his parents and become a 'Ghar Jamai' and live in their house amounts to cruelty”.
Advocate Chirag Khurana appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Nikhil Bhardwaj appeared for the Respondent.
The Appellant and the Respondent got married in 2001 according to Hindu customs. However, the Appellant claimed that the Respondent's behaviour became aggressive and she refused to live with him. In March 2002, the Appellant tried to convince her to come back to their matrimonial home, but she refused. The Appellant filed for divorce but after being assured by the Respondent and her family that they would reconcile their differences, he withdrew the petition. Unfortunately, a few years later, the Respondent filed a false criminal case against the Appellant under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, but he was acquitted. The Appellant and Respondent have been living apart since February 2002. The Appellant (‘plaintiff’ in divorce proceedings) filed for divorce on the basis of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), but his petition was dismissed by the Family Court. The Appellant appealed to the High Court challenging the judgment.
The Cout noted that living together and having a conjugal relationship is the foundation of any successful marriage. The main focus of any marriage is the comfort and happiness that the couple brings to each other's lives, the Court added. However, the parties have been living apart since February 2002, barely six months after they got married. This separation is proof that the couple was unable to maintain their matrimonial relationship, the Court held.
The Court held that when a couple is forced to be apart, it is clear that the marriage cannot survive. The Court asserted that deprivation of a conjugal relationship constitutes extreme cruelty. The Court referred to the Supreme Court Judgment in the cases of Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj [(2020) 3 SCC 786] and K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita [(2014) 16 SCC 34].
Furthermore, the Court noted that both the Appellant and Respondent had sought companionship with a third party due to a long separation. However, the Court noted that the Respondent had withdrawn from the company of the Appellant without providing a valid reason. While it is possible that both parties entered into a new relationship during the proceedings, it remains true that at the time of filing the petition, the Respondent had deserted the Appellant without justification, the Court emphasised.
“Here is the case where long separation has forced both the appellant and respondent, to apparently find companionship in a third person. Be that as it may, it is evident that the evidence on record sufficiently proves that the respondent had withdrawn from the company of the appellant for which she has not been able to give any cogent reason. Both petitioner and respondent may have got into a relationship during the pendency of the proceedings, but the fact remains that on the date of filing the petition, the respondent had withdrawn from the company of the petitioner for no cogent reason. Considering the entire evidence, it is proved that the parties had drifted away and that respondent has deserted the petitioner/ appellant without any reasonable cause”, the bench noted.
The Respondent also told the Court that she was struggling financially and had not yet been able to get a BPL card, which is required to apply for an EWS flat. The Food and Supply Officer assured the Court that the BPL card would be issued within 15 days of receiving the application.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.
Cause Title: Devender Govind Ram Ravin v Rekha