IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
JAGWATI - Appellant
Versus
GAJENDER KUMAR - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 143 of 2015
Decided on : 01-09-2016
Desertion - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9, Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) - Section 498-A/406/506/34 IPC - Section 9, Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 498-A/406/506/34 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/wife contested a divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband, alleging cruelty and harassment on account of dowry. The court found that the appellant/wife had caused mental cruelty and deserted the respondent/husband, leading to the dissolution of the marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant/wife had caused mental cruelty to the respondent/husband and his family members and also deserted him with animus deserendi. The court also considered the criminal case filed by the appellant/wife, where the testimony of the appellant/wife was not considered trustworthy.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of cruelty, harassment, and desertion by the appellant/wife, as well as the credibility of the appellant/wife's testimony in the criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles of desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and considered the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without consent and without reasonable cause. The court also emphasized that leveling false allegations and getting the respondent/husband and in-laws arrested in false cases amounts to cruelty.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the dissolution of the marriage, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 143/2015
1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the judgment dated August 21, 2016 whereby a decree has been passed in favour of the respondent/husband dissolving their marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion by her.
2. In brief, the admitted facts are that the appellant/wife got married to the respondent/husband on May 15, 1998. No issue was born out of this wedlock. The appellant/wife was the only child of her parents. She not only used to visit her parents very frequently but also stay there for about 15-20 days every month. On her visit to her parental home on the death of her father on April 16, 2000, she lived there for about eleven-twelve months.
3. Since the appellant/wife was not performing the matrimonial obligation by staying away from her matrimonial home and often living at her parental home for years together, a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed in the year 2003 by the respondent/husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant/wife agreed to resume cohabitation and returned to matrimonial home on March 10, 2015. The joy was short lived as admittedly she left after four days and is staying at her parental home since March 14, 2005. The circumstances under which she has gone to parental home on March 14, 2005 were intimated by the respondent/husband to the local Police Station at Kapashera on the same day.
4. After a long wait for almost five years, in the year 2010 the respondent/husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the grounds specified under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
5. The divorce petition was contested by the appellant/wife levelling allegations of cruelty and harassment on account of dowry which she had been tolerating in the hope that better sense would prevail upon her husband. She was forced by her husband and in-laws to live at her parental home. She also filed a complaint before the Women Cell. She claimed that she had no intention to bring an end to cohabitation or break the matrimonial ties which can be gathered from the fact that from the Court she accompanied her husband on March 10, 2005 when he filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She also pleaded that on March 14, 2005 she did not leave the matrimonial home on her own but after treating her with cruelty she was left at the outskirts of her parental Village Daulatabad by her husband on the pretext that he was going to Madras for 15 days on official work. Thereafter her husband never came to take her back. This compelled her to continue staying at her parent’s house. Even now she is ready and willing to return to matrimonial home and live with respondent/husband as his wife.
6. Learned Judge, Family Court after examining the testimony of the appellant/wife and respondent/husband, was of the view that appellant/wife had caused mental cruelty to respondent/husband and his family members and also deserted him on March 14, 2005 with animus deserendi. The Family Court took notice of the facts in the Criminal Case No. 116/2005 under Sections 498-A/406/506/34 IPC filed in the Court at Gurgaon by the appellant/wife, even married sister and unmarried sisters were not spared. The proceedings against the two sisters were quashed by Punjab & Haryana High Court. This was considered to be sufficient to prove mental cruelty being caused by the appellant/wife.
7. On behalf of appellant/wife, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate has submitted that the respondent/husband is in Delhi police. He had used his influence in getting favourable orders. It was the respondent/husband who had been treating the appellant/wife with cruelty so much so that he even did not attend the funeral of his father-in-law. On the contrary, it was the appellant/wife who agreed to return to the matrimonial home on March 10, 2005 during hearing of petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant/wife t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.