Delhi High Court: The present appeal was filed on behalf of appellant-husband against the judgment dated 21-12-1999 of the Additional District Judge (‘ADJ’), denying divorce on the ground of cruelty in a petition filed by him under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’). The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., opined that merely because there was an acquittal by a Criminal Court, did not wash away the cruelty committed by appellant of being involved with a young girl during the subsistence of his marriage with respondent; mere acquittal in a criminal case could not be a ground to grant divorce. The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the ADJ had rightly concluded that it was appellant who was responsible for acts of cruelty towards respondent and had thus rejected the divorce petition.
Background
The parties got married on 6-12-1982 and were blessed with a daughter and a son on 26-9-1984 and 26-8-1991, respectively. Appellant asserted that respondent-wife was disrespectful and refused to take care of him and even assaulted him physically. She was in a habit of extracting money and forced him to give expensive gifts to her relatives and had no affection towards him or his family members. It was asserted that respondent went to Patiala on 16-6-1992 on a false pretext of illness of her mother while appellant had to go to Kaza for his office work. Subsequently, he came to know that her younger sister had gone missing for the last three days and a false pretext of illness of mother had been told to him. On return from Kaza, he stopped at the house of respondent’s family in Patiala and tried to counsel the family to let the sister marry the man with whom she had gone, but he was not appreciated for his concern and was threatened with divorce and ridiculed in filthy language by respondent and her family members.
Appellant had further asserted that while he was operated on 15-7-1993 for Appendicitis, respondent quarreled with him despite him being in terrible pain and was forced by the ward staff to leave the hospital. She made false allegations of appellant leading an immoral life and having an illicit relationship with a woman named X, in her complaint dated 4-7-1994, filed before Women Cell, P.S. Hauz Khas, Delhi. Appellant stated that because of such conduct of respondent his peace of mind was shattered, and he was compelled to do all the household work including cooking and taking care of the children. He thus sought divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The ADJ concluded that the relationship between appellant and X was in the nature that would cause one to believe that they had a relationship of husband and wife, which was unlawful, unauthorized, and not sanctioned by rule and custom and the possibility of sexual relationship between them could not be overruled. Hence, respondent’s suspicion was not held to be baseless and her conduct towards appellant was not found to be cruel entitling him to a decree of divorce. The divorce petition was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, appellant preferred the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that respondent’s claim of appellant developing relationship outside the marriage was fully corroborated and supported by the oral testimony and the documents. The Court observed that the evidence on record reflected that appellant who got involved with X since 1994 and left the house in August 1994 was the one who had committed cruelty upon respondent. Respondent could not be penalized for making such allegations and protesting about the relationship which had a strong basis and foundation. In fact, she had a justification to complain about the conduct of appellant and to take any view otherwise would indeed be committing cruelty upon respondent.
The Court noted that an FIR was registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 against appellant, his sister and brother-in-law and while sister and brother-in-law were discharged at the time of framing of charges, appellant was acquitted. The Court opined that however, considering the overwhelming evidence revealing the relationship with X, this acquittal subsequent to the divorce itself, could not be a ground to say that any kind of cruelty had been committed upon him by respondent. The Court opined that merely because there was an acquittal by a Criminal Court, did not wash away the cruelty committed by appellant of being involved with a young girl during the subsistence of his marriage with respondent; mere acquittal in a criminal case could not be a ground to grant divorce.
The Court observed that despite it being a failed marriage of over 40 years, granting divorce would be adding a premium to the wrong acts of appellant. While the human emotions know no bounds and rules, but definitely the human sensibilities emanating from the mind should have prevailed for an educated person like appellant to have reigned his affections for a third person, with scant regard for respondent who had reposed complete faith by entering into the vows of marriage with him. This was one case where Section 23(1)(a) of HMA, which provided that no person could take advantage of its own wrong, comes into play, in full force.
The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the ADJ had rightly concluded that it was appellant who was responsible for acts of cruelty towards respondent and had thus rejected the divorce petition.
[S.C. Nuna v. Anita Nuna, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1607, decided 1-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Naina Kejriwal, Shoma, Advocate
For the Respondent: S. Janani, Sharika Rai, Advocates
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
