Delhi High Court: In the instant case, an appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment dated 09-05-2023, granting divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’), the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.*, opined that in the present case, the wife had not been able to justify her claim for separate residence and also had not been able to prove her claim of dowry demands by the husband and his family. The Court further opined making such false and frivolous allegations which were not even supported by any evidence led to the conclusion that the husband was subject to cruelty. Thus, the Court concurred with the findings of the Family Court and upheld the divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(ib) of the Act.
Background
In the instant case, the parties got married on 15-01-2012, as per Hindu customs and rites. However, no child was born from the wedlock. On 15-02-2012, the respondent-husband took the appellant-wife to the Mauritius for honeymoon, where they stayed till 22-02-2012. But the wife did not permit any physical relationship and was only interested in shopping. Subsequently, when the parties came back from Mauritius, the wife went to her parental home. Further, on 25-02-2012, when the husband went to the wife’s parental home, she misbehaved and stated that she would not return unless the husband gave in writing that he would arrange a separate accommodation within a month. The husband’s father proposed to set up a separate residence but the wife’s misbehaviour continued.
The husband asserted that the wife’s behaviour was adamant as she misbehaved and insisted for getting a separate accommodation. On 30-01-2012, the parties went to Mussoorie, but the wife did not allow any physical relationship there or after their return. The husband also asserted that the wife also passed adverse comments and was non sympathetic towards the husband’s grandfather, who was sick and bedridden.
Further, when the husband expressed his inability to set up a separate residence, the wife’s father threatened him. The husband claimed that the wife quarrelled on petty issues and left for her matrimonial home with her brother on 13-04-2012.
The wife also filed a complaint before Crime Against Women Cell on 17-09-2013 and also filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, the husband was granted anticipatory bail.
Thus, the husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
The Principal Judge, Family Court (‘Family Court’) observed that the marriage between the parties lasted only for three months and even during that period, the instances narrated by the husband established that wife had treated the husband with cruelty. Consequently, the Family Court allowed the petition and divorce was granted on the grounds of cruelty under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Act.
Thus, the wife filed the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Rajeev Chadha v. Shama Chadha Nee Shama Kapoor, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1720; Shakuntala Kumari v. Om Prakash Ghai; 1980 SCC OnLine Del 268 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh; (2007) 4 SCC 511 and opined that in the present case, the marriage between the parties subsisted for barely three months and also the marriage failed completely on account of deprivation of conjugal rights.
The Court further opined that if the circumstances justify, the wife’s claim of separate accommodation could not be termed as an act of cruelty. There might be myriad of situations, such as differences with in-laws, work commitments or difference of opinion which made the demand for separate accommodation justified for survival of marriage. When certain justifiable reasons existed, the claim for separate residence could not be termed as an act of cruelty.
The Court further opined that, in the Indian context, if the husband had chosen to be in a joint family with his parents, he could not be forced to separate from the first day of his marriage merely on the wife’s whims. A person had equal responsibility towards his parents and his spouse which required a delicate balance to maintained between the two. In the present case, the wife had not been able to justify her claim for separate residence and also, had not been able to prove her claim of dowry demands by the husband and his family.
The Court opined that the matrimonial relationship needed nurturing, care, compassion, cooperation and adjustments before it could bloom into a full conjugal relationship, but in the present case, the wife had walk out of the matrimonial home in barely three months.
The Court noted that the wife had filed a complaint in Crime Against Women Cell, which resulted in the registration of FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the husband and his parents. The Court opined that mere filing of complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC could not be termed as an act of cruelty, but in the present case, the allegations of harassment because of dowry should have been proved by the wife. Thus, relying on Nishi v. Jagdish Ram, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5370; K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita, (2014) 16 SCC 34 and Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 786, the Court opined that making such false and frivolous allegations which were not even supported by evidence led to the conclusion that the husband was subject to cruelty.
Further, with regard to desertion, the Court opined that the wife withdrew from the husband’s company on 13-04-2012 without any reason and she had no intention of resuming her relationship with the husband.
Thus, the Court concurred with the findings of the Family Court and upheld the divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(ib) of the Act.
[Anshul Jain v. Nitin Jain, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6365, decided on 03-10-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Ashok Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Durgesh Gupta, Kamal Pundir, Kshitiz Mudgal and Anshul Rajora, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Rashid Hashmi, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
