Delhi High Court: The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was preferred by appellant-husband against the judgment dated 29-11-2022 passed by the Family Court, Delhi, whereby his petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) seeking divorce from respondent-wife, was dismissed. The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., noted that in the proceedings under Section 9 of the HMA, respondent had shown her willingness to accompany appellant at her matrimonial house but she was simultaneously processing her complaints against appellant and her family members, which showed her ill-intention to harass appellant and his family by roping them in different litigations. Thus, the Court held that the rejection of appellant’s petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA by the Family Court was devoid of merits and thus, the impugned judgment dated 29-11-2022 deserves to be set aside. The Court allowed the appeal and held that the marriage between the parties was dissolved under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
Background
Appellant alleged that his marriage had been strained right from its inception due to respondent’s indifference/disrespect towards him and his family and that respondent was of quarrelsome nature and was not cooperative, as she neither participated in the day-to-day chores nor contributed financially to the house-hold expenses despite being employed.
Appellant further submitted that respondent had gone to her matrimonial home with their son on 15-6-2013 and his every request to bring them back, was adamantly refused. After multiple failed attempts to bring her back to the matrimonial home and reconciliation, appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA. Appellant alleged that despite making best efforts at his end, respondent was not only disrespectful, malicious, and consistently reluctant to cohabitate with him but also relentless in her pursuit to implicate him and his parents in false cases and thereby, inflicted mental cruelty. Appellant thereafter on 16-3-2016 filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA seeking dissolution of his marriage with respondent.
Respondent submitted that it was appellant who had subjected her to cruelty by regularly mistreating and humiliating her and even his parents harassed her with illegal dowry demands that persisted even after the birth of their child due to which she suffered grave mental agony. Respondent further submitted that even during her pregnancy, she was made to do the household chores and was forced to travel by public transport alone. Respondent denied appellant’s allegation of her unreasonable visits to her maternal home and submitted that initially after birth, their child had developed health complications, toward which appellant remained callous and unbothered due to which she was constrained to seek help from her parents.
The Family Court decided the matter in favour of respondent and against appellant and thereby dismissed his petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appeal was preferred by appellant on the ground that the Family Court had failed to appreciate that respondent had treated him with cruelty and therefore, rejection of his petition was bad in law.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that though respondent claimed that she was forced to live with her parents because the infant child needed care and she herself was forced by her in-laws to do household chores immediately after delivery of the child, but in her cross-examination, respondent admitted that there was a maid servant at her matrimonial home to take care of the household responsibilities.
The Court opined that when a wife indulged herself to do household chores, she did it with affection and love for her family. However, if her health or other circumstances did not permit her to do so, forcefully asking her to do household chores would certainly be cruelty. But in the present case, it was admitted by respondent that a maid servant was already hired and that she was not forced upon, therefore her allegations deserved to be rejected.
The Court opined that respondent’s plea that she was left to fend for herself because appellant made frequent visits to his parents deserves to be rejected as being the son, he also had moral responsibilities towards his aged parents, who also could not have been left to survive alone. The Court stated that respondent did not file any complaint under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 for recovery of her stridhan or jewellery articles, which allegedly were in possession of appellant, which showed that she had decided to quit in a planned manner.
The Court opined that such kind of allegations which assassinate the character of the spouse amounted to highest level of cruelly, which no doubt shall shake the foundation of their marriage and in the present case, respondent by levelling allegations of appellant having extra marital affair, had committed immense cruelty upon him and tarnishing the public image of appellant and his family, at his work place and also in their relatives, amounted to damage of their respect and it was obvious for the spouse at the suffering end to lose trust and respect for the other.
The Court noted that in Section 9 proceedings, respondent had shown her willingness to accompany appellant at her matrimonial house, but she was simultaneously processing her complaints against appellant and her family members, which showed her ill-intention to harass appellant and his family by roping them in different litigations. The Court relied on Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476, wherein it was held that “unsubstantiated allegations if levelled, amounts to mental cruelty and is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA”.
Thus, the Court held that the rejection of appellant’s petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act by the Family Court was devoid of merits and thus, the impugned judgment dated 29-11-2022 deserves to be set aside. The Court allowed the appeal and held that the marriage between the parties was dissolved under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
[Gautam Rawal v. Garima Rawal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1900, decided on 19-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: In person with G.C. Rawal, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
