Delhi High Court: While addressing a matrimonial matter wherein a wife caused cruelty to husband, Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., expressed that,

For a man to see his parents to be taken into custody and being incarcerated even for a single day would have caused immense and untold pain and agony to him.

Instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act was directed against the Judgment and Decree. The said petition was preferred by the respondent/husband against the appellant/wife to seek a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that he was subjected to cruelty.

Due to certain disputes between the husband and wife, the appellant filed the complaint against the respondent and his parents which resulted in the registration of the FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 34 IPC.

Serious allegations of criminal conduct made against the respondent and his parents were not proved by the appellant. Premised on the said conduct of the appellant, Family Court returned a finding that the respondent was subjected to mental cruelty. Consequently, the decree of divorce was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the respondent and his parents applied for bail, the same was not opposed by the appellant. The appellant had also filed a petition to seek restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court opined that merely because the appellant may not have opposed the bail application moved by the respondent and his parents was not sufficient to effect the irresponsible conduct of the appellant.

Mere fact that wife made serious allegations of criminal conduct against the husband and his parents – which she could not establish before the Court, was sufficient to constitute acts of cruelty against the husband.

 In view of the above, how can the husband be expected to allow the wife into his life in these circumstances?

Court found no merit in the present appeal and dismissed the same. [Neelam v. Jai Singh, Mat. App. (FC) No. 106 of 2021, decided on 9-11-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

For the Appellant:

Inderpal Khokhar, Advocate

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.