Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted the dissolution of a marriage, stating that a wife cannot be compelled to live with her husband while he maintains a concubine.
Justice Satyen Vaidya, presiding over a bench, dismissed a petition filed by a husband who accused his wife of cruelty and desertion to oppose the plea for dissolution of the marriage. In delivering the verdict, the high court emphasized that no wife should be compelled to reside in a marital home where her husband cohabits with another woman.
Brief Facts:
The husband filed a petition to dissolve his marriage with the respondent (wife). According to the husband, they were married in 1987 and had two children together. However, their relationship deteriorated over time due to the respondent's behavior. She would frequently quarrel with the husband and his family members, often leaving the matrimonial house. Eventually, the respondent permanently left the husband and entrusted the custody of the minor children to him.
The husband, who worked as a conductor with irregular working hours, claimed that the respondent's conduct added to his mental and physical fatigue. Despite efforts to reconcile and bring her back, the respondent refused. The respondent had also been granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month in a separate claim under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The respondent's attitude remained hostile and indifferent towards the husband and his family members, showing no care for them or the minor children.
Contentions of the Appellant:
According to the husband, he had provided evidence to demonstrate that the respondent had abandoned him without any valid reason and despite his efforts, she did not return.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent contested the husband's claims and denied all allegations. According to her defense, after seven years of marriage, the husband expelled her from their matrimonial home to marry another woman named Lachhi. She objected to this and was forced out of the house. The respondent had to leave with the minor children, who were later brought back by the husband after about five years.
Observations by the Court:
Justice Vaidya, upon examining the petition, found a lack of specific instances of cruelty mentioned, except for a general claim of a hostile attitude towards the husband and his family. The petition failed to adhere to the requirements of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Himachal Pradesh) Rules 1982, which mandate detailed allegations of cruelty with specific time and place. Regarding the husband's claim of cruelty, the bench referred to the precedent of Dr. N.G Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975)],stressing that the burden of proof rests on the party alleging cruelty and necessitates a preponderance of probabilities. Merely stating the wife's quarrelsome nature proved inadequate to meet this standard.
The bench further remarked that the husband not only failed to present evidence substantiating acts of cruelty by the respondent but that the respondent's defense, justifying her decision to live separately, was supported by evidence. General statements made during cross-examination about the wife's quarrelsome behavior and refusal to return to the matrimonial home were deemed insufficient to establish cruelty on her part. Additionally, the bench highlighted that the husband had not specifically pleaded desertion as a ground for divorce, and the trial court had erroneously framed the issue.
Based on the facts and circumstances, it was determined by the court that even if desertion had been claimed as a ground for divorce, the Respondent provided valid justification for her decision to live separately from her spouse.
The decision of the Court:
The petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Nain Sukh Vs Seema Devi
Coram: Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case No.: FAO No. : 437 of 2010
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaw.com
Picture Source :