Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed by the appellant-husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., opined that temporary separation gave a sense of insecurity in the spouse’s mind that the other was not willing to continue the matrimonial bond. In the present case, it had been clearly demonstrated that soon after their marriage, parties had marital conflicts. The respondent-wife had no intention to live in joint family and to make herself comfortable, left her matrimonial home very frequently to live with her parents. Whereas, on the other hand the husband by arranging separate accommodation tried his best to keep her happy, but by choosing to stay with her parents, the wife had ignored her matrimonial obligations and deprived the husband of his fatherhood by keeping him away from his son. Thus, the Court opined that the husband was subjected to cruelty by the wife and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment dated 25-11-2019 and granted divorce to the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
Background
In the present case, the parties got married on 10-03-2007 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and on 08-02-2008, one son was born from the wedlock. As per the husband, his marriage had been tumultuous since the beginning due to the quarrelsome and uncompromising conduct of the wife towards him and his family members at every juncture of life. The husband stated that the wife’s non-contribution in household chores, suicide threats and false implication followed by recurring abandonment of matrimonial home, had been a chord of contention and was pleaded as a ground for dissolution of marriage in his petition before the Family Court.
The husband stated that ever since he moved to Orissa for his training with CISF on 16-04-2007, the relationship between the wife and his parents turned sour due to which the wife briefly moved back to her maternal home with their newborn son and returned after much persuasion. However, due to continued disturbances, the husband took a separate accommodation to live with the wife in December 2008 at the place of his posting. However, the husband claimed that despite living separately, the wife’s resistance to household chores and unruly behaviour towards him persisted. Ultimately, he was constrained to send her back to her matrimonial home in February 2009 due to her threats to tarnish his image at his workplace, from where the wife went back to her parents’ house.
The husband alleged that the wife along with his family members, approached his superior officer and filed a complaint against him due to which he took a leave for 20-25 days to arrange for a separate accommodation. However, the said accommodation was also abandoned by the wife soon after the husband left for Jharkhand to resume his duties. The husband alleged that the wife deserted him and started living with her parents, and as a counter blast, the wife filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘the IPC’), and thereafter an FIR was registered against him and his family members wherein allegations of dowry demand and physical abuse were raised by the wife.
The Family Court opined that in the light of testimony of the witnesses recorded and other material placed before it, the husband failed to point out any specific instance against the wife which could be termed as cruel treatment on her part and that the allegations levelled by the husband were vague, non-specific and general in nature.
Thus, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that in the present case, when the parties entered a wedlock, their intent was to share the responsibilities of future life. Further, in a catena of decisions, it had already been held that if a married woman was asked to do household work, the same could not be equated to a work of maid servant and should be counted as her love and affection for her family. The Court opined that in certain strata, the husband took the financial obligations and wife accepted household responsibility, thus even if the husband expected the wife to do household chores, it could not be termed as cruelty.
The Court opined that in the present case, the husband bowed to the wife’s desires and arranged for a separate accommodation to save his matrimonial life. The husband was CISF member, and he had to be away on duty, but the wife on one pretext or the other abandoned her matrimonial home and lived with her parents. The Court opined that to nurture the matrimonial bond, it was of high importance that the parties live together and avoided leaving each other’s company frequently. Temporary separation gave a sense of insecurity in the spouse’s mind that the other was not willing to continue the matrimonial bond.
The Court noted that the wife filed a complaint against the husband and his family members for dowry demand, which culminated into registration of FIR under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 of the IPC, and they were put to trial for the offences. Even though the husband was first held guilty of the offences, but in the appeal, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 04-20-2019. Subsequently, the Court relied on Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476 and opined that every aggrieved person had an absolute right to initiate appropriate legal action and approach the State machinery, however, such allegations had to be supported by cogent evidence. Though filing of a criminal complaint per-se did not amount to cruelty, however, grave and uncorroborated allegations amounted to cruelty.
The Court opined that instances of cruelty were not to be taken in isolation, but cumulative effect of facts and circumstances emerging from evidence had to be taken into consideration and then draw a fair inference that whether a spouse had been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of another spouse. In the present case, it had been clearly demonstrated that soon after their marriage, parties had marital conflicts. The wife had no intention to live in joint family and to make herself comfortable, left her matrimonial home very frequently to live with her parents. Whereas, on the other hand the husband by arranging separate accommodation tried his best to keep her happy, but by choosing to stay with her parents, the wife had ignored her matrimonial obligations and deprived the husband of his fatherhood by keeping him away from his son.
Thus, the Court opined that the husband was subjected to cruelty by the wife and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment dated 25-11-2019 and granted divorce to the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
[X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1551, decided on 01-03-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Jatin Mongia and Anatesh Bannon, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Hemant Kumar Srivastava and Amit Kumar, Advocates
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Many joint family in India get fragmented nowadays due to space constraints mainly in their minds rather than actual land space and majority have constraints about their new entrant daughter in laws. Many mother in law’s behaviour will be quite strange particularly with homemakers forgetting their own hardships at the hands of their MIL rather they take it as their chance.here FIL,SIL etc play side role.
In this context that lady could have taken tough stand
In many cases judgement of lower courts have been dismissed by higher courts
Perhaps the fault made by lady is in filing case as dowry demand
The court or husband who so concerned about marriage life could have referred first to pchychartic doctor
Again the child looses the parenthood