The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal in a case for dissolution of marriage, on grounds of false allegations leveled by the wife against the husband and his family members. The Court observed that involving one’s spouse and their family in protracted litigation along with the prospect of arrest over patently unsubstantiated allegations constitutes an act of cruelty against them.
Brief Facts
An appeal under Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984 was filed in an attempt to set aside the impugned decree passed by the Family Court, Delhi granting divorce on grounds of cruelty filed by the respondent/ husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’). The parties, who were initially co-workers, got married for a period of over thirteen months, after which they decided to get separated. The wife filed a criminal complaint under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against her husband and his family members. Severe differences arose between the parties, due to which the husband filed for a divorce petition. Upon being allowed for same, the wife challenged the Family Court’s decision.
Contentions of the Appellant
The appellant denied all the allegations made in the divorce petition by the respondent. It was claimed that the respondent had made false allegations against her in an attempt to avoid and escape the criminal proceedings initiated against him. It was additionally contended that she was harassed and ill-treated by the husband and her in-laws, in terms of facing disrespect in the household and being tortured for more dowry. It was alleged that the harassment went to the extent of depriving her of water and electricity. Further, claims alleging infidelity on part of the respondent were made. It was alleged that he shared an unhealthy amount of time and relationships with his female apprentices while neglecting the appellant.
Contentions of the Respondent
It was contended that the appellant did not settle in the matrimonial life, while consistently berating the respondent and using abusive language against him. It was additionally contended that the appellant failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations. It was claimed that the appellant used to threaten the respondent over conceiving a child from some other person, after he expressed his reluctance upon immediately having a child. The respondent submitted that his wife was immensely disrespectful towards his family members, in terms of hurling abuses and threats onto them. She also publicly humiliated the respondent by visiting his office and narrating concocted stories to his employer. Further, it was claimed that the appellant insisted upon ascertaining ownership of the respondent’s grandmother’s property.
Observations by the Court
The High Court observed that the events which had transpired between the parties may not assume much significance when viewed in isolation, but in the light of the present context, pointed out towards the ‘non adjusting attitude of the appellant/wife who had no maturity to sort out the differences with the husband without his public humiliation due to which the respondent suffered mental cruelty.’ The Court also observed that the act of threatening the respondent as to conceiving a child from another man is bound to create mental trauma in the mind of any husband. While emphasizing upon the decision of the Apex Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, it was observed that in such cases, the situation should be of such a nature that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party.
Reliance was also placed on the ratio given in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that ‘Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent’. As for the issue of contended adultery by the appellant, the Court held that there was no concrete evidence supporting the said allegations, which were made without any basis. In Jayanti v. Rakesh Mediratta, it was held that bald allegations of adultery without any substantiation, amount to cruelty. The Court further observed that the acts of the appellant/wife of filing not only false criminal cases against the husband and his family but also, appealing against them in a vexatious manner, amounts to cruelty.
Lastly, the Court discussed the implications of the appellant’s action of unilaterally withdrawing her consent for divorce (by mutual consent) and returning the demand draft which she had received from the respondent. Reliance was placed upon the observations made by this court in Rajiv Chikkara v. Sandhya Mathur, ‘where a Divorce by Mutual Consent was agreed to by both the parties, the subsequent unilateral withdrawal of consent by a spouse without any sufficient or just cause, would add to the cruelty meted out to the other’. It was held that the fight between the parties was just an ego-war prompted by the desire to wreak vengeance against the spouse.
Decision of the Court
The Court dismissed the appeal with the pending applications, as they found no legal infirmity in the judgement passed by the Family Court, granting divorce on the grounds of cruelty to the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955.
Case Title: RS v. VS
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case No.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 107/2017
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Varun Kapur, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv., Mr. Varun Chandiok, Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
