The Delhi High Court has granted divorce to a couple living separately for 12 years on the ground that the wife had filed an unsubstantiated criminal complaint against the husband and his family members causing them immense mental cruelty and agony.

The division-bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh while dissolving the marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 noted that the marital discord between the parties at present is such that there is a complete loss of faith, trust, understanding and love.

The appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 challenging the judgment and decree by the Family Court whereby the petition seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the appellant, was dismissed.

The case of the appellant was that the respondent unilaterally left their matrimonial home with the child in 2010, without informing or seeking the appellant’s consent. On the same day, the appellant along with his brother and mother went to his in-law’s residence with the aim to bring the respondent back. However, she flatly refused to come back to the matrimonial home. Following this, there was a physical altercation between the appellant and his brother on one side, and the respondent’s brothers on the other side. These experiences have led to immense bitterness in the relationship between the parties.

It was further submitted that for more than one and a half years, there was no direct communication or contact between the appellant and the respondent, or even their families. In 2011, the appellant sent a legal notice, demanding the respondent to rejoin her matrimonial home, and resume their conjugal relationship. However, the respondent neither rejoined her matrimonial home, nor responded to the legal notice. Troubled by this, the appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The appellant further submitted that after receiving the notice of the appellant’s petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, rather than joining the appellant back, the respondent filed a complaint dated before CAW Cell alleging harassment due to dowry demand and domestic violence, amongst others. As per the appellant, the complaint before the CAW Cell was a counterblast to the appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The respondent filed a reply to the appellant’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein she had sought dismissal of the said petition, and also filed a copy of her CAW Cell complaint as an annexure to reiterate her allegations. Further, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking maintenance from the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations made before the CAW Cell were not only false, baseless and malicious, but also of a degree which has caused much mental agony to the Appellant tantamounting to cruelty.

In the complaint before CAW Cell, the respondent had stated that she was harassed for dowry by the appellant and his family members. However, during her cross-examination in these proceedings, the statement made was totally contrary i.e. no dowry demand was made, either prior to, or at the time of marriage by the appellant or his family members, he contended.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the complaint in CAW Cell had been made more than two and a half years after the marriage, which points to the mal-intent on behalf of the Respondent-wife.

Reliance was placed on K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, 2013 Latest Caselaw 158 SC, Sanjay Choudhary @ Sanjay Jaiswal vs. Anjali Devi &Ors., Nishi vs. Jagdish Ram, Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja, 2017 Latest Caselaw 358 SC, Renu Yadav vs. Arun Singh Yadav.

High Court's Observation

The Court at the outset noted that the conduct of the appellant shows that, at least, till the time he filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, he wanted to make his marriage work.

The Court noted that it is for this reason, he along with his brother and mother went to the house of the respondent and even sent a legal notice requisitioning the respondent to rejoin her matrimonial home and to resume conjugal relationship. For this reason, he filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. However, the respondent didn't resume cohabitation or join the appellant in the matrimonial relationship. Rather, the respondent filed a complaint before the CAW cell alleging dowry demand, threat to life, and harassment at the hands of the appellant and his family members. The same allegations were reiterated in the reply to the section 9 petition, where the CAW cell complaint was also annexed. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

"Despite the appellant and his mother visiting the house of the respondent – which fact was completely denied by the respondent at one stage, and admitted at another stage, the respondent did not join the matrimonial home of the appellant. Her subsequent statement that they had not requested her to return to the matrimonial home cannot be believed, since she even denied the said visit, which she admitted later. Even otherwise, it does not stand to reason as to why the appellant would go to the respondent’s parental home with his mother and brother later in the day, when the respondent had left the matrimonial home. Pertinently, she had the child with her, and in this context, the appellant and his mother and brother must have been driven to bring her back. This is also probabalised by the subsequent contemporaneous conduct of the appellant in issuing a notice to her to rejoin his company, and in filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Further, even after sending the legal notice and the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – which was filed as early as 20.08.2011, the respondent still did not join the matrimonial home of the appellant."

 This conduct of the respondent not only demonstrated a clear intention on her part to desert the appellant, but also her lack of sensitivity to the physical and emotional needs of the appellant, the Court noted.

Noting that the respondent, throughout, has been adamant and unwilling to resume her matrimonial relationship with the appellant and allegations of dowry demands, abuse, physical and mental torture and harassment, amongst other cruelties also being remained unsubstantiated, the Court deemed it appprioate to grant Divorce Decree on the ground of mental creulty.

The Court also referred to SC decisions in Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj,  K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, 2013 Latest Caselaw 158 SC.

"The allegations have not been established and amount to a clear and categorical character assassination of the appellant as well as his family members. The Family Court has ignored the said aspect of the matter. Moreover, the appellant had to make 30-40 visits to the police station in connection with the said complaint. A police station is not the best of places for anyone to visit. It must have caused mental harassment and trauma each time he was required to visit the police station, with the Damocles Sword hanging over his head, and he not knowing when a case would be registered against him and he would be arrested. So far as the respondent is concerned, she had done everything to get the appellant and his family entrapped in the criminal case. That was also her prayer in her complaint."

 Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon