Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 14-02-2019, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., opined that the acts of indifference, non-accommodative nature, constant taunts on the husband’s financial capacity, disrupting family relations and an extremely disrespectful attitude, was per se a conduct that would cause disquiet in the husband’s mind. Thus, such constant bickering and the fights caused continuous stress in the husband’s mind and impacted his mental well-being as well. The Court opined that though these incidents might seem to be innocuous insignificant or trifling when considered independently, but over a period, when such conduct prevailed, it was bound to create mental stress, which made it impossible for the parties to survive in their matrimonial relationship. Thus, the Court concluded that the Family Court had rightly granted the divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the HMA’).
Background
On 22-05-1997, the parties got married and on 18-06-1999, a son was born from wedlock. The respondent-husband asserted that after the marriage, the parties started residing along with the husband’s parents, but that was not acceptable to the appellant-wife. On the wife’s insistence, they shifted to Delhi to reside in the husband’s brother’s house because the husband did not have the financial capacity to set-up an independent residence in a metropolitan city like Delhi. However, the wife’s attitude was unaccommodating, temperamental and she had frequent differences with the sister-in-law and because of such irresponsible, erratic and aggressive behaviour of the wife, he was compelled to set-up a separate residence in Delhi, in 2004. However, even after shifting to an independent reside, the wife’s attitude did not change, and she continued to be disrespectful and quarrelsome.
The husband further asserted the wife also taunted him for taking loan from her parents, and asserted as to why he got married, if he did not have the financial capability to meet the expenses. The husband stated that he had tried to meet all the requirements of his wife, despite his financial constraints, and 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.
The husband stated that in December 2004, the wife along with the child, left the matrimonial home and went to her parental home without informing the husband. Despite much counselling by the husband, she did not return. However, she came back with the child in March 2005 for the examination of the child but again left in June 2005, in his absence and took away all her belongings. Thereafter, when the wife refused him to meet their minor child, the husband filed the guardianship petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and, sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the HMA.
The Family Court held that the husband’s testimony supported by the witnesses examined by him, established that he had been subjected to cruelty by the wife, and allowed the divorce on the ground of cruelty, but the divorce on the ground of desertion was rejected. The Family Court further noted that there had been no re-conciliation or restitution of the conjugal rights despite the decree dated 19-03-2008 under Section 9 of the HMA, and thus, the husband was also held entitled to divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the HMA.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court applied the three-pronged test laid down in A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, and opined that it could be easily inferred that the acts of indifference, non-accommodative nature, constant taunts on the husband’s financial capacity, disrupting family relations and an extremely disrespectful attitude, was per se a conduct that would cause disquiet in the husband’s mind. Thus, such constant bickering and the fights caused continuous stress in the husband’s mind and impacted his mental well-being as well.
The Court relied on A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 and Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur, (2010) 14 SCC 301, and opined that the various incidents narrated by the husband towards the overall conduct and a non-adjusting attitude of the wife, led to the irresistible conclusion that such conduct was bound to cause a grave apprehension in the husband’s mind, thereby disrupting his mental equilibrium. The Court opined that though these incidents might seem to be innocuous insignificant or trifling when considered independently, but over a period, when such conduct prevailed, it was bound to create mental stress of the kind, which made it impossible for the parties to survive in their matrimonial relationship. Thus, the Court concluded that the Family Court had rightly held that the husband was subjected to cruelty, to grant divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
Further, the Court noted that the husband had also been granted divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the HMA, which provided that in case there was no restitution of conjugal rights despite a decree under section 9 of HMA, for a period of one year, either party could seek dissolution of marriage, and opined that divorce on that ground did not amount to taking advantage of your own wrong as it was a legal right, which followed non-resumption or restitution of conjugal rights despite a decree of restitution.
The Court opined that it would not be a practical and would also be unreasonable and inhuman to compel the parties to keep the facade of marriage alive, even though the rift between them was complete and there were no prospects of their ever living together as the husband and wife. The Court further opined that the very fact that Section 13(1A)(ii) of the HMA ensured to the benefit of ‘either party’ clearly implied that in case of non-compliance of decree under Section 9 of the HMA, either party was entitled to seek divorce on this ground and the judgment debtor could not be precluded from exercising his right to avail the relief thereof. The Court opined that Section 23 of the HMA could not be interpreted in a way to completely render the remedy under Section 13 (1A)(ii) of the HMA, ineffectual.
Thus, the Court concluded that the Family Court had rightly granted the divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1A)(ii) of the HMA.
[SA v. VD, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 677, decided on 30-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Ashok Sharma, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Mrinal Bharti, Manish Kumar Shekhari and Sanjana Srivastava, Advocates.
