SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Del) 1528

High Court Of Delhi
ANUBHA - Appellant
Versus
VIKAS AGRAWAL - Respondent
Suit 1966 of 1999
Decided On : 09/27/2002

Advocates Appeared:
A.S.CHANDHIOK, Hari Chand

Headnote:a) The case discussed whether a wife could seek separate house and maintenance under Section 18(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, on the ground of cruelty and desertion – The defendants were very educated and had demanded dowry and the husband had locked the plaintiff in the house without providing her food or money – The husband had left for another place by making the wife shelter less and the wife was forced to leave her matrimonial house – It was held that the wife was entitled to separate living and maintenance b) The case discussed the meaning of the word ‘unchaste life’ within the provisions of 18(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – It was held that the expression ‘unchaste life’ covers any sexual relation of a married person with one of the opposite sex other than the spouse of that person and the word ‘unchaste’ appearing under Section 18 of the Act means an adulterous life c) It was held that talking to strangers or mixing up with the friends and relatives of the husband cannot be called as living ‘unchaste life, within the meaning of Section 18(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 d) The case discussed whether the mental cruelty could be included in cruelty within the provisions of Section 18(b) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – It was held that the word ‘cruelty’ means bodily harm and injuries and the same meaning is not valid in the modern life as it has widened its meaning and has included mental cruelty in it – Further, any act resulting in mental suffering and pain, making it impossible for the aggrieved party to live with the guilty party is covered by the term ‘cruelty’ e) The case discussed whether the decree of ‘no fault divorce’ obtained by the husband from a Court of the United States of America (USA) could be enforced on the wife while their marriage was solemnised as per the Hindu rites – The parties were Hindus and were living in USA – The wife had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court in USA and had not consented to grant of divorce – It was held that in view of the circumstances of the case, the decree obtained by the husband from a foreign Court could not be recognised or enforced in India under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

J. D. Kapoor

( 1 ). Here is a case of an unfortunate hapless young bride who strayed in a dark tunnel without any hope to see the light at its end as she got entrapped in the marital, knot on the temptation of greener pastures as the groom was NRI and might have painted a rosy picture about the life in the United States, It is common knowledge that for those who are more conscious about the material comforts than the mental happiness in life look for sojourns abroad particularly in countries like United states and grab the opportunity as it comes to them. However such illusion is so short lived that the moment they land there it evaporates making their life miserable and the place a tiny hell. Such brides end up as emotional wreck carrying albatross of marriage around their neck during the golden period of their youth.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF, a yo. ung girl of 24-25 years is seeking decree of declaration that she is entitled to live separately from her husband, the defendant, and also for a decree for maintenance in her favour in the sum of US dollar 1500 per month or Rs. 65,250/- per month or equivalent thereof besides the pendente lite expenses as she was deserted and abandoned after being subjected to cruelty. Her marriage rocked at the threshold as she was back to her parents hardly after two months of her marriage.

( 3 ) THE matrimonial alliance of the parties was a result of matrimonial advertisement. Plaintiff is highly educated woman. She possesses degree of B. Sc (Honours) physics from University of Delhi having ,attained distinction and is a Gold Medallist in Master s of business Administration. The defendant is a Domicile and citizen of India but was a NRI at the time of marriage and was residing at Connecticut in USA. He possessed a RH-1 B visa which means he had the right to work. He was employed as a Software Engineer with M/s Lexibridge on a salary of US Dollars 4,000 per month plus perks and bonus etc. He is an Electronic and Communication Engineer from the Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Bihar. Their marriage took place in Delhi on 11th May, 1999 according to Hindu rites. They also last resided at Delhi after marriage and before leaving. for United States.

( 4 ) I deem it needless to refer to various instances showing the defendant and his parents in poor light and greedy persons that took place during the negotiations for marriage as these may not be of any significant relevance so far as the nature of relief sought by the plaintiff is concerned. It appears the marriage Itself bore ill omen for the plaintiff as immediately after vida in the early morning of 12th May, 1999 when the plaintiff and the defendant left for Dhanora, the defendant s parental home, their car had an accident near Gajraula and from that very moment, the defendant and his parents and other members of the family started cursing and calling her inauspicious and a harbinger of bad luck. Plaintiff s story Is like this.

( 5 ) SHE and defendant returned to New Delhi in the late night on 12th May, 1999 and stayed in a suite at the taj Palace Hotel till 16th May, 1999. During the stay, the plaintiff s life was made miserable. She was mentally tortured by the defendant for more dowry. The -defendant told her that in case her father did not corne up with the requisite sum of Rs. 10 lacs he would take her to America and throw her in front of a speeding vehicle since in america if he broke her legs like this, he would get millions in damages and in case she died he would get billions. The defendant also told her that he had a premarital affair in America with one maria and stated that in case the plaintiff s father did not give more money he would leave her for the said Maria. The defendant also threatened her that while he could always have a new wife for life but neither she nor her younger sister would ever be able to get married. Thus even during the honeymoon, the plaintiff was treated with extreme cruelty by the defendant.

( 6 ) ON 22nd M



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top