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

1986 Supreme(Del) 66

High Court Of Delhi
SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA - Appellant
Versus
USHA - Respondent
First Appeal Order 251 of 1983
Decided On : 02/12/1986

Advocates Appeared:
C.L.Joseph, S.K.Bagga

Termination of pregnancy without the consent of the husband can amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 13(1)(IA) - CRUELTY - TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY WITHOUT CONSENT OF HUSBAND - HELD TO BE CRUELTY - DIVORCE GRANTED.

Fact of the Case:

Husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty by the wife. The specific grounds were that the wife had taken steps to terminate her pregnancy without his consent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the wife had indeed become pregnant after marriage and had undergone an abortion without the husband's consent. The court held that this act amounted to cruelty and granted the husband a decree of divorce.

Issues: Whether termination of pregnancy without the consent of the husband amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that termination of pregnancy without the consent of the husband can amount to cruelty, especially when it is done in the very first pregnancy and without any medical necessity. The court also noted that the wife had denied becoming pregnant and having an operation, which showed her intent to deceive the husband.

Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's judgment and granted the husband a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

MAHINDER NARAIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a husband s appeal against the order of Shri G. S. Dhaka, Additional District Judge. Delhi, dated 30th August, 1983, whereby the husband s petition for a decree of divorce under S. 13 (l) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), was refused.

( 2 ) THE parties were married according to the Hindu rites on 23-11-1980 at Delhi. The wife is stated to have left the appellant on l5th Feb. 1981.

( 3 ) THERE were various grounds taken by the husband in the petition for dissolution of marriage but in this appeal 1 need to mentioned only the grounds mentioned in paras 4a, 4b and 4c of the amended petition, which read as under : -

"4a. That at the time of departure of the respondent from the matrimonial home on 15-1-81 the petitioner was not aware that the respondent was carrying a child from the joins of the petitioner 4b. That the respondent obtained some I medicines from Doctor Kirpal Singh Bakshi. Delhi on 15-1-81 and also obtained a prescription and the said medicine was meant for terminating of pregnancy and further that at the time of obtaining the medicine she had given a false address of her residence. 4c. That the respondent had also consulted. some time between the 15th to 18th Jan. 1981, a doctor in Nirmal Chopra Nursing Home at Sadar Bazar. Agra and,the pregnancy was terminated in Agra. "

( 4 ) THUS the assertion in these paragraphs of the amended petition was that the wife is guilty of cruelty to the appellant as she has taken steps to take the medicine and entered a Nursing Home for the purposes of terminating the pregnancy.

( 5 ) THE assertions made in paras 4a, 4b and 4c of the amended petition were controverted in the corresponding paragraphs of the written statement which read as under :

"4a. That para 4 (A) of the petition is wrong and illegal and hence denied. The para is quite ambiguous as in paras 3 and 4 of the petition, the petitioner has clearly asserted that the parties lived together as husband and wife up till 15-2-81, and the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty from 15-2-81 is the date when the petitioner took the respondent to Agra to her parents home. But in this para it is alleged that the respondent left the matrimonial home on 15-1-81 which is quite contradictory to the contentions of the petition. The respondent did not depart from the matrimonial home on 15-1-81 but was living there along with the petitioner. It is wrong that the respondent was "carrying a child as alleged; The petitioner was fully aware of the condition of the respondent who while living with the petitioner was suffering from some menstrual trouble. Therefore, under the circumstances, there could not be any question of any pregnancy or of the petitioner being aware of it. The para is vehemently denied. 4b. That para No. 4b of the petition is wrong and illegal and hence denied. The para is quite ambiguous as the detailed address of the alleged doctor or the name of the medicine has not been disclosed. The respondent is not aware of any such doctor at any time nor she ever obtained any medicine or prescription from any such doctor. It may be stated that the respondent was getting her treatment for her menstrual trouble and the petitioner used to bring medicines himself for the respondent. As the respondent never herself went to any doctor named Kirpal Singh Bakshi, therefore, there could be no question of giving any address to the doctor. The petitioner is levelling false charges upon the respondent. The para is vehemently denied. 4c. That para No. 4c of the petition is wrong and illegal and hence denied. It is wrong that the respondent ever consulted any doctor in Nirmal Chopra Nursing Home at Sadar Bazar, Agra or there was any termination of any pregnancy at Agra. As the respondent was staying with the petitioner up till 15-2-81 as per his own contentions, therefore, there could be no question of visiting Agra or consulting any doctor at that place. The para is


























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top