Spouse Against Whom Decree Of Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Is Passed Can Also Seek Divorce Under Section 13 (1A)(ii) Hindu Marriage Act: Delhi HC

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait thus observed: "The very fact that Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, enures to the benefit of “either party” clearly implies that in case of non-compliance of a Decree under Section 9 of the HMA, either party is entitled to seek divorce on this ground and the Judgment Debtor cannot be precluded from exercising his right to avail the relief thereof. Section 23 cannot be interpreted in a way to completely render the remedy under Section 13 (1A) (ii) otiose"

In the present matter, the respondent-husband in his Divorce Petition had asserted that after the marriage, the parties started residing at Nagina (Haryana) along with the parents of the respondent but this was not acceptable to the appellant. On her insistence, they shifted to Delhi, to reside in the house of the brother and sister-in-law of the respondent because the respondent did not have a financial capacity to set-up an independent residence in a metropolitan city like Delhi.

However, the attitude of the appellant was unaccommodating, temperamental and she had frequent differences with the sister-in-law. There was bickering and quarrels inter se the appellant and the sister-in-law on petty matters. Because of such irresponsible, erratic and aggressive behaviour of the appellant, he was compelled to set-up a separate residence in Delhi, in the year 2004. Even after shifting to an independent residence, the attitude of the appellant did not change and she continued to be disrespectful and quarrelsome. She frequently fought with him after he returned back from his office. Also because of these quarrels, many a times, he went to his office without his breakfast.

As per the claims made by the respondent claimed that he took an LIC Policy to ensure the future of his wife in case anything happened to him. He also tried to meet all her requirements despite his financial constraints. Even during her pregnancy, he took good care of her within his meets and he continued to suffer her tantrums in a fond hope that the things would eventually settle. However, the respondent made irresponsible accusations of he being unfaithful; so much so that after the birth of the child, when a family friend of the respondent visited their house to congratulate on the birth of the child, the appellant made public allegations that she was a woman of bad character and had some sort of illegal relationship with the respondent/husband, which was a source of immense mental trauma and humiliation to him. She even accused him of being unfaithful because of his long working hours in his office.

It was further asserted that she blamed him for all the unhappiness in her life and for not being able to provide her with the comforts of life. She dreamt of a high society life and refused to adjust in the limited resources which led to frequent quarrels with the respondent.

“The various incidents narrated by the respondent towards the overall conduct and a non-adjusting attitude of the appellant who lacked maturity to even sort out the differences with the husband, leads to the irresistible conclusion that such conduct was bound to cause a grave apprehension in the mind of the respondent disrupting his mental equilibrium. Though these incidents may seem to be innocuous, insignificant or trifling when considered independently, but when such conduct prevails over a period of time, it is bound to create mental stress of the kind, which makes it impossible for the parties to survive in their matrimonial relationship…A wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations. Pressurizing spouse to fulfil distant and whimsical dreams clearly not within his financial reach may create a sense of persistent dissatisfaction which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquility out of any married life. One must tread carefully between the needs, wants and desires”, the bench noted in the order.

The wife, also contended that a decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights was made against the husband and since he has not complied with the same, he is not entitled to take benefit of his own wrong in terms of Section 23 of the HMA.

"This is also evident from the language of under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the HMA which is to the effect that “either party”, which includes the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor, who can seek divorce in case of noncompliance of decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. If the Parliament intended that it is only the party in whose favour the restitution has been allowed, who can avail the remedy under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the HMA, then the language would have been accordingly used in the said Section. The very fact that Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, enures to the benefit of “either party” clearly implies that in case of non-compliance of a Decree under Section 9 of the HMA, either party is entitled to seek divorce on this ground and the Judgment Debtor cannot be precluded from exercising his right to avail the relief thereof. Section 23 cannot be interpreted in a way to completely render the remedy under Section 13 (1A) (ii) otiose.", the court said while upholding divorce granted on this ground also.

Appearance: For the Petitioner: Ashok Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mrinal Bharti, Manish Kumar Shekhari and Sanjana Srivastava, Advocates.

Cause Title: X v Y[Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:780-DB]