Desertion Without Any Reasonable Cause: SC Grants Divorce To Husband & Directs Him To Pay ₹30L As Alimony To Wife
The Supreme Court has granted a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HM Act’) after the wife showed no inclination to resume cohabitation and the desertion of the husband continued without any reasonable cause.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Hence, the desertion of the appellant at least from 2008 till the date of filing the divorce petition in 2013 continued without any reasonable cause. Therefore, a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) ought to have been passed. Thus, in our view, the High Court ought to have confirmed the decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion. This is a case of a complete breakdown of marriage for last 16 years and more.”
Senior Advocate Sukumar Pattjoshi appeared for the Appellant while AOR Himanshu Sharma appeared for the Respondent.
The marriage between the parties was solemnised and two children were born from the marriage, who are adults now. The matrimonial dispute led to multiple litigations. The matrimonial discord started in 2006, which led to the Husband filing a petition under Section 9 of the HM Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
By the judgment and decree, the lower court passed a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under which the wife was directed to join the husband’s company within three months.
According to the case of the husband, as the wife did not abide by the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, he filed a petition under Section 13 of the HM Act before the Family Court seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Being aggrieved by the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife preferred an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appeal was dismissed by the judgment and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was confirmed.
The divorce petition was also allowed and dissolved the marriage between the parties, the same was challenged by the wife. Subsequently, the High Court set aside the divorce decree.
There were two other litigations between the parties. The respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claiming maintenance against the appellant.
The Court held, “The period of one year was not complete when the appellant filed the divorce petition. In the Judgment dated 15th May 2013 passed by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the High Court, the Courts accepted the appellant's case that the continuous desertion was from December 2006. The decree was confirmed on 19th February 2015 by the High Court. Admittedly, the respondent did not resume the cohabitation after 15th May 2013 till the date of filing of the divorce petition. It is not her case that any event happened after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed, which prevented her from joining the appellant's company.”
The Court also noted that the husband offered to pay the respondent a lump sum alimony of Rs. 30 lakhs and this amount was reasonable and could be accepted as a onetime lump sum alimony.
The Court also said that there was no material on record to show that after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed, the wife showed even an inclination to resume cohabitation with the husband.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed by setting aside that part of the impugned judgment by which the High Court interfered with the decree for divorce on the ground of desertion and dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the HM Act.
Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 476)
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sukumar Pattjoshi, AOR Rakesh Mishra, Advocates Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Satyam Pandey, Vishwajeet Mishra and Awadhesh Kumar.
Respondent: AOR Himanshu Sharma, Advocates Aditi Sharma, Varun Sharma Basant Kumar and Arun Kumar.
