April 25, 2019:
Delhi High Court has recently held that to insist on retaining the matrimonial bond would be putting the party under intense mental cruelty.
A bench of Justice Sistani and Justice Jyoti Singh has passed the order in case titled MS vs SD on 23.04.2019.
The parties got married on 21.06.1999 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sahib Ganj, Bihar. After the marriage, both the parties cohabitated as husband and wife at Kotiyan, Bihar. Although the marriage was consummated but there is no issue from the said wedlock. Husband was appointed as Air Men in the Indian Force at the age of 18 in November, 1995. As the mother of the appellant was seriously ill and was eager to see the marriage of her son, the appellant married the respondent at a very early age. The marriage was a simple marriage without any dowry. The respondent joined the matrimonial house but stayed there for 14 days only and returned to her parental house and came back only after one year. The appellant found that respondent was a lady of unusual temperament and was very harsh and cruel towards him and his family members. Most of the time she would live at her parental house and would join the matrimonial home only when the appellant came on leave. It is claimed that in the month of November, 2002 when the appellant was at his native village, on annual leave, both brothers of the respondent and her father along with several other people came to house of the appellant on 24.11.2002 and created a lot of scene at his house and even manhandled the appellant and his family members in public, causing acute agony and insult to them. Husband also provided other instances.
The learned Family Court after perusing the evidence and pleadings found that the appellant had retired in November, 2015 was gainfully employed and living a life of contentment. The respondent has been full of remorse and that both were cordial to each other during the conciliation proceedings. It came to a finding that the appellant had failed to prove and substantiate the grounds for divorce u/s 13 (1) (ia) and (iii) of Act. The Family Court thus passed a decree of judicial separation by observing that the period of judicial separation would afford further opportunity to theparties to salvage something positive out of their wrecked relationship.
It is the above judgment and decree which is impugned by the appellant husband and he prayed that decree of divorce be passed between the parties and impugned Judgment be set aside.
High Court observed “When the pleadings coupled with the evidence lead by the appellant is examined, we find no specific incidents; dates or particulars of cruelty, harshness or unusual temperament have been detailed in the petition seeking divorce. The appellant has failed to provide necessary particulars in terms of Rule 7 as extracted above. Mere sweeping allegations are made in the pleadings and in the affidavit leading evidence. Thus, on this aspect, the appellant has been unsuccessful in proving cruelty”.
It further observed “We thus agree with the Family Court that in the absence of any cogent and independent evidence by the appellant, the allegations leveled by him cannot be held to have been proved and therefore, the appellant has not been able to make out his case that the respondent had treated him with cruelty on account of these allegations”.
High Court opined “After having interacted with the parties at great length, we find that there is no common ground between the two even today. They do not want to come to a settlement of any kind. The appellant feels very strongly against the respondent for having spoilt his life and career. Even if we dismiss the appeal, there are hardly any chances that the parties will lead a happy life as there is lot of bitterness in the mind of the husband due to the conduct of the wife. Maybe that the respondent/wife took certain actions in her desperation to save the marriage, out of frustration or under the dictates of her brother, but the fact of the matter is that her approach to the whole problem was incorrect”.
High Court held “The Family Court in its wisdom granted a decree of judicial separation with a view to give time to the parties to salvage their relationship. In our view, this was not the correct approach in the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, following the law laid down by various judicial pronouncements (supra), we feel that the appellant has proved mental cruelty on account of his incarceration. Blended with the irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the parties, as mentioned above, we find that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved”.
Read the orders here:
