In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court dissolved a ten-year-long marriage while sending a powerful message against domestic abuse. The court's division bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, emphasized that the institution of marriage should never be a justification for subjecting one's spouse to physical abuse or torture.
Brief Facts:
The appellant, in the present matrimonial appeal, sought relief against a judgment and decree issued by the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The Family Court had dismissed her petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant's claims were based on allegations of cruelty and desertion by her husband.
The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu customs on 05.02.2013. The appellant contended that she faced physical and mental torture, as well as various forms of mistreatment by her husband and his family. She claimed that their intention was to remove her from the family to facilitate a marriage between the respondent and a girl from a wealthier background.
Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant asserted that she was subjected to physical and mental torture from the beginning of her marriage, but she endured it in the hope that the situation would improve over time. She claimed that her husband's family demanded money from her and forced her to part with funds, and she was also made to tolerate acts of cruelty. The appellant alleged that her husband forcibly took her ATM card and withdrew money, and her husband's family demanded financial contributions for various purposes. She stated that her husband's family had treated her badly, leading to her pregnancy, which resulted in an abortion due to forced administration of medication. She also alleged her husband's inappropriate relationship with another woman. The appellant claimed that she was physically assaulted, left at her parental home, and her husband refused to take her back, which led to the eventual breakdown of their relationship.
The respondent did not file a written statement in response to the divorce petition. The respondent did not contest the appellant's claims, and he also did not challenge her testimony during cross-examination. The respondent's lack of response led the court to conclude that the allegations against him, including physical assault and cruelty, were not effectively rebutted.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the appellant's claims were substantiated not only by her own testimony but also by medical records that revealed injuries consistent with her allegations of assault. The bench further emphasized that marriage should never be a shield behind which any spouse can inflict harm or cruelty.
"Merely because the parties got married and the respondent was her husband, no law gave him the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture," stated the court. The bench found that the respondent's actions clearly qualified as physical cruelty, warranting divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Additionally, the court highlighted that the respondent failed to explain the circumstances that led to the appellant being left at her parental home and did not refute the testimony that she was not allowed back into the matrimonial home without reason. This evidence demonstrated an intention on the respondent's part to sever the marital relationship, which was further supported by his decision not to contest the petition.
The decision of the Court:
The appellant's plea for divorce on the grounds of desertion under Section 13 1 (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also upheld. The court stressed that her situation and the lack of effort from the respondent to restore the companionship established a case for divorce.
Case Name: XYZ v ABC
Coram: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case No.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 136/2022, CM APPL. 39535/2022
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Mann and Mr. Shalabh Bhardwaj, Advocates with appellant in person.
Advocates of the Respondent: Ms. Koplin K. Kandhari, Advocate through Video Conferencing. Respondent in person
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
