The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently stated that a wife cannot be compelled to reside in the matrimonial home if the husband is living with another woman. In light of this observation, Justice Satyen Vaidya rejected a husband's plea for divorce based on allegations of desertion and cruelty. The Court emphasized that the wife had a valid reason to live separately, as it is unreasonable to expect a wife to live in the matrimonial home when the husband is cohabitating with another woman.
Brief Facts:
The husband filed a petition seeking the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent wife, stating that they were married in 1987 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. They had two children together, but the respondent started residing with her parents in 1995, after quarrels and strained relations with the husband and his family. The husband claimed that the respondent's behavior had been consistently problematic, leading to an irreparable breakdown in their relationship.
He further mentioned that the respondent left him and their minor children in his custody, while she was awarded maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Despite attempts to reconcile and bring her back, the respondent remained hostile and indifferent towards the husband and his family, neglecting her responsibilities towards them.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent contested the husband's claims and denied all allegations made against her. In response, she stated that after seven years of marriage, the husband forced her to leave their matrimonial home because he intended to marry another woman named Lachhi, whom he brought into their home. The respondent objected to this treatment and was consequently expelled from the matrimonial home. She further argued that she had to leave with their minor children, who were later returned by the husband after approximately five years.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court carefully examined the husband's allegations of cruelty but found them to be vague and lacking specific instances. The husband had mainly stated that the wife had a hostile attitude towards him and his family, engaging in frequent arguments before leaving their home. However, the Court emphasized that the Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Himachal Pradesh) Rules, 1982 require specific details of cruelty, including the time, place, and other relevant facts, to be mentioned in the petition.
The Court acknowledged that the only proven fact on record was that the wife had been living separately from her husband since 1995. However, the Court deemed that the issue of desertion was not properly framed in the petition, as essential jurisdictional facts were missing.
Furthermore, the wife presented justifiable reasons for her decision to live apart, including her claim that the husband had married another woman and had two sons with her. The High Court observed that the husband failed to sufficiently counter these allegations, and the wife provided witnesses who supported her claim. Based on these factors, the Court concluded that the claim of desertion was unsubstantiated.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh HC dismissed the husband’s plea for divorce and upheld the family court order.
Case Title: Nain Sukh v Seema Devi
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case no: FAO No. : 437 OF 2010
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sohail Khan
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Adarsh Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
