Judgment

J.S. Khehar, J.

1. The present controversy arises out of a matrimonial alliance, between Petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 both are highly educated. They were known to one other, whilst they were in the United Kingdom. Consequent upon the development of intimacy between them, they decided to get married. The families of both parties, are located in India. Whilst the family of Petitioner No. 1 is at Mumbai, that of Respondent No. 2 is in New Delhi. The pleadings before this Court, as also, the orders appended thereto reveal, that the marriage between Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Hima Pritam Sadaphule took place at Lalit Hotel, Connaught Place, New Delhi on 5.3.2005. The funds for the marriage, were stated to have been contributed, only by the parents of Respondent No. 2. The factual position, insofar as the marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, that needs to be noticed is, that the parents and relatives of Petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule, did not participate in the above marriage. It is therefore apparent, that they were not agreeable to the matrimonial alliance.

2. It is also not a matter of dispute, that Petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule, separated in October, 2009. Petitioner No. 1 initiated divorce proceedings in the United Kingdom, seeking permanent dissolution of the matrimonial alliance, with Respondent No. 2. A Court in the United Kingdom, in the first instance, issued decree nisi on 9.5.2011, and thereafter, a final decree dated 21.6.2011. By the final decree, the marriage between Petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule, came to be dissolved.

3. Independent of the divorce proceedings initiated by Petitioner No. 1 in the United Kingdom, Respondent No. 2 also filed a divorce petition against Petitioner No. 1 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before a Family Court (Additional District Judge-I, New Delhi District, Patiala House) in India. During the course of the above proceedings, it came to be held by the Family Court vide an order dated 22.9.2011, that the divorce proceedings conducted in the United Kingdom, were not binding, insofar as the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2, before the Family Court under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, were concerned.

4. A challenge was raised to the above order dated 22.9.2011, by Petitioner No. 1, before the High Court of Delhi. The above challenge raised through CRP No. 1481 of 2011, was declined by the High Court, on 22.4.2013. It is also not a matter of dispute, that a special leave petition filed before this Court, against the order passed by the High Court, came to be dismissed on 26.8.2013.

5. It would be relevant to mention, that aggrieved with the behavior of Petitioner No. 1 -Pritam Ashok Sadaphule, Respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule filed a complaint dated 9.9.2009 in the United Kingdom. The said complaint was however rejected by an order dated 20.08.2009, due to insufficient evidence, "at this time". Besides the complaint, referred to hereinabove, Respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule also sought an injunction in the United Kingdom, against Petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule. On account of the strained and distressing domestic relationship between the parties, she sought an order of restrain against him, from interfering in her affairs. A non-molestation order accordingly came to be passed on 1.6.2010 by a Court in the United Kingdom. By the aforesaid order, the Court in the United Kingdom passed a restraining order against Petitioner No. 1, which was operative for a period of two years. The aforesaid non-molestation order, we are informed, has run out its course.

6. On 5.2.2010, Respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, in Delhi.