Back
Rejects Divorce Plea Where Husband Claimed Sedation at Wedding 18 Years Ago
The has dismissed an appeal by a husband seeking dissolution of his nearly 18-year marriage, rejecting his unusual claim that he was under the influence of a sedative substance during the wedding ceremonies. A division bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that the husband’s conduct in simultaneously disputing the validity of the marriage while seeking divorce under the amounted to taking advantage of his , disentitling him to relief.
A Marriage Disputed from the Start
The couple married on , at Arya Samaj Mandir in Delhi. Shortly after, marital discord arose, and the wife filed a complaint under in . She also initiated proceedings under (HMA) seeking , which was decreed in her favour on . Despite the decree, the parties never resumed cohabitation. In , the husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1A) and , arguing that there had been no for over two years. The dismissed his petition, prompting the appeal before the High Court.
Husband’s Contentions: Sedation and No Cohabitation
The appellant, represented by advocate , argued that the marriage was because he was under the influence of a sedative at the time of the ceremonies, rendering consent invalid. He further contended that the wife had lived separately without just cause since 2013 and that he had complied with maintenance orders by paying ₹10,000 monthly. Relying on , he submitted that payment of maintenance demonstrated good faith and that the wife’s failure to resume cohabitation entitled him to divorce.
Wife’s Stand: Willing to Resume Married Life
Opposing the appeal, the wife’s counsel, , asserted that she had always been willing to rejoin her husband and withdraw all pending litigations. She argued that the husband had deserted her without cause, and that she had filed execution proceedings to enforce the , which were thwarted by his refusal to cohabit. The ’s decision, she submitted, was correct and should be upheld.
Court Examines Legal Framework: Sections 13(1A) and 23(1)(a)
The High Court noted that allows either party to seek divorce after one year of non-resumption of cohabitation following a . However, mandates that the court must be satisfied that the petitioner is not taking advantage of his or her . Relying on the ’s ruling in , the bench clarified that the right under Section 13(1A) is not absolute and is subject to the conditions of Section 23.
The court observed that the husband made no attempts to reconcile before filing the divorce petition. In contrast, the wife deposed that she had called him repeatedly and was willing to give up all cases if he took her back. The court also noted that the husband had denied the very existence of the marriage in his defence to the restitution petition, yet simultaneously sought dissolution of the same marriage.
Key Observations: ‘A Party Cannot Simultaneously’
The bench pointed out the inconsistency in the husband’s stance: “On one hand, he disputed the validity of the marriage itself and on the other hand, he sought dissolution of the very same marriage under the garb of Sections 13(1)(ib) and 13(1A) of the HMA.” It held that this conduct squarely fell within the meaning of “” under . The court emphasized that a party cannot —challenging the marriage’s validity while praying for its dissolution.
Regarding the sedation claim, the court noted that even if true, it could at best render the marriage under , requiring a petition for annulment within one year of discovery. The issue had already been decided against the husband in the restitution proceedings and had attained finality. The payment of maintenance, the bench added, is a statutory obligation and does not by itself entitle a spouse to a .
The court distinguished Saroj Rani , noting that in that case the marriage’s validity was never in dispute, unlike here where the husband consistently challenged it.
High Court Dismisses Appeal
Finding no perversity or illegality in the ’s decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It rejected the husband’s argument that should be a ground, stating that the law does not recognise it as a standalone basis for divorce, especially when the wife remains willing to resume cohabitation. The judgment underscores that parties seeking divorce under Section 13(1A) must approach the court with and cannot use the provision to escape a marriage they themselves have undermined.
