The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Ritu Bahri and Nidhi Gupta passed a decree of divorce against a husband on the ground of desertion and cruelty by the wife. (Ratandeep Singh Ahuja v. Harpreet Kaur)
The bench dismissing the application observed, " this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court have repeatedly held that if the wife files frequent and frivolous complaints against her spouse, it amounts to cruelty and is sufficient ground for divorce."
Facts of the case
The appeal was filed by the husband against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion was dismissed.
It was submitted that he and his wife only lived together for 9 months after marriage and had children. He further said that his wife was disrespectful and dominating and picked a fight with him.
It was also pointed out by the husband that the wife has filed many false and frivolous complaints against him including allegations of torture and demand of dowry.
Contention of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently stated before us that the respondent has caused great ignominy, embarrassment, harassment and and loss of reputation to the appellant by making utterly false allegations against him and his entire family before his seniors and colleagues, as also to the senior officers of the Punjab Police. The appellant and his old mother were even undergoing a trial. The respondent had made innumerable vicious and vindictive complaints before every forum and platform that she could find from the Army Headquarters, Air Force Headquarters, Army/Air Force Wives Welfare Association, National Commission for Women, this Court, as well as senior police officers of the Punjab Police.
Accordingly, counsel submitted that the appellant and his family had been subjected to tremendous mental agony and cruelty. Counsel for the appellant further stated that the parties have been living separately since the past 9 years i.e. since 2013. They, by their own admission, lived together only for 9 months. The appellant states that till the present date, he has already paid Rs.23 lacs to the respondent as maintenance.
Counsel for the respondent stated that the wife has developed Ovarian tumour and keeps bad health since 2018 and denies all other allegations made against her and reiterates the averments made by her in her written statement and relies upon the evidence led by her.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench observed, "This Court, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in numerous decisions that false allegations made by a party against the spouse or his/her family, amount to cruelty. Admittedly in this case, the respondent has unequivocally admitted in her cross-examination that her complaint against her father in law alleging inappropriate behaviour was found to be false by the police, and therefore he was not challaned. However, the learned Court below has not dealt with this aspect at all. A reference has been made in para 13 of the impugned order to the evidence of respondent as RW1 to the effect that 'she never complained against her father-in-law keeping an evil eye upon her during her stay at her in-law’s house. She stated that her allegations against her father in law were not found correct and he was not challaned.' Thus, though the ld. Court below has noticed this fact, yet, has not considered or dealt with this aspect of the matter at all."
The bench further observed, "In our view, the conduct of the parties in the present case evidences that there are irreconcilable differences between the parties, rendering the marriage, as of today, a mere legal fiction. It is not in dispute that the parties are residing separately since 2013. Even mediation attempts between the parties have remained unsuccessful. Though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not available as a ground under the statute, yet, the reality of it has been recognised by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions."
The bench disposing of the application remarked, "Thus, in the conspectus of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and in consonance with the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with a view to do complete justice, and put an end to the agony of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present appeal. Before parting, even though the parties have lived together in matrimonial home only for nine months, and even though there is no child from their wedlock, and even though during this litigation admittedly the appellant has already paid Rs. 23 lacs to the respondent as maintenance yet, we deem it fit to grant her permanent alimony of a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs only) as full and final settlement."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
