Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant/husband seeking the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion, and setting aside the impugned order of lower Court, whereby, his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissedthe division bench of Nidhi Gupta and Ritu Bahri, JJ. in order to do complete justice and to put an end to the agony of parties, set aside the impugned order of the lower Court, and dissolved the marriage solemnized between the parties by a decree of divorce. Further, it granted the wife permanent alimony of a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as full and final settlement.
The Court found the ruling of the lower Court to be factually incorrect wherein it was held that no cruelty was meted out by the wife against the husband, andtermed the allegations of the husband to be ‘vague and general’, despite the fact that the respondent has levelled the most objectionable allegations against the appellant and his family.
The Court observed that the lower Court has not dealt with the aspect that the wife in her cross-examination has admitted that her father-in-law’s alleged inappropriate behaviour was found to be false by the police, and therefore he was not challaned. The Court referred N. Rajendran v. S Valli, (2022) SCC Online SC 157, and viewed that the parties in the present case have irreconcilable differences making the marriage a mere legal fiction. Parties have resided separately since 2013 and all mediation attempts have been wasteful.
The Court referred to the decision in K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita, (2014) 16 SCC 34, and disagreed with the view of the lower Court, that even though the respondent had filed so many complaints, but no cruelty is made out because all these complaints had been made after the husband had filed the petition for divorce.
The Court referred to the decision in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742 wherein it was held that “if the wife files frequent and frivolous complaints against her spouse, it amounts to cruelty and is sufficient ground for divorce” It also referred the ruling in Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194, wherein it was held that “Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the HMA, 1955”.
Further, placing reliance on the decision in N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 157, the Court viewed that that the parties had been living separately for an extended period and that the efforts of solving the dispute through meditation and methods failed to resolve it; and even though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not available as a ground under the statute, yet, the reality of it has been recognised by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. It also referred to the decision in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, wherein the Court granted divorce,as the parties were living separately since ten years and the wife was not ready to divorce the husband, even though their marriage has been irretrievably broken down.
The Court observed that matrimonial cases are matters of delicate human and emotional relationships demanding mutual love, regard, respect and affection. Reasonable adjustments must be made with the spouse while conforming to social norms. It needs to be controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in a broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making a well-knit healthy society. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and role in society.Thus, the Court allowed the present appeal to set aside the impugned order, as the marriage between the parties is completely broken down.
[Ratandeep Singh Ahuja v. Harpreet Kaur, First Appeal Order-Matrimonial-208 of 2013 decided on 11.10.2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant;
Rahul Bhargava, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Sister, with this much anonymity and cases between both of you, and living separately for so many years, how can one think that this marriage is of any use for any one of you?
Brother, that means if the husband of your sister throws her away out of her matrimonial home after inflicting several Cruelties on her, and files divorce on her for a mere cohabitation of nine months where your medical officer sister had to even resign from her government job due to this husband , don’t you think your sister has the right to knock the door of courts for justice and then the hierarchy of courts take ten to twelve years to ultimately decide that due to this separation of 10 years or so, the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
How? If the wife is constantly, since ten years is willing to join her husband, despite of several false cases filed on her and her parents, then how the husband is being given divorce on the ground of desertion.
Moreover the divorce petition does not have even a single specific allegation of cruelty ,then how can it even be assumed that wife committed cruelty on her husband when he himself could not specify any allegation in his divorce petition.
If divorces were too easy for the sisters in India, then there was not at all any need for domestic violence act to be brought in 2005 by our lawmakers.
This law was made a breather for those women who had to tolerate the atrocities of this husband in order to stay in the matrimonial home as women know that ,in most of the cases, not even her parents stand by her leaving aside the rest of society.
So, the husband whose parents have taught him that women are a use and throw material, needs to be taught a lesson for life and ,who better than a wife, can do so.
Here the husband has concealed major facts from the High Court :
1)That he is being prosecuted U/s 406,498a,377,354a of IPC ,67 and 67A IT ACT before the Ld. TRIAL COURT PATIALA.
2)HE HAS ALSO CONCEALED THAT HIS FATHER WHO WAS EXONERATED BY THE POLICE FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE POLICE, WAS CHARGESHEETED BY LD.JMIC PATIALA ON 04/01/2017,MUCH BEFORE THE FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSAL OF DIVORCE PETITION BY THE E ADJ PATIALA on 08/05/2017.
AS HE HAS COMMITTED PERJURY HE IS LIABLE TO BE PROSECUTED FOR RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT OF NOT LESS THAN SEVEN YEARS.
LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE POOR WIFE DURING 5 TO 10 MUNITES OF FINAL ARGUMENTS.
AND THE RICH AND INFLUENTIAL HUSBAND WAS REPRESENTED BY ADVOCATE GENERAL PUNJAB AND HIS ASSOCIATES.
USE OF MONEY AND POWER XAN NOT BE RULED OUT IN THIS JUDGMENT.
No advocate appeared on behalf of the poor respondent wife but the husband hired advocate general punjab and his associate . The husband concealed major material facts from the court for somehow obtain the decree for ulterior motives.
The husband in a few days will be prosecuted U/s 340 crpc for concealment of material facts for RIGROUS IMPRISONMENT OF 7 YEARS.
JUST KEEP IN TOUCH WITH THE CASE.