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

2016 Supreme(Del) 3670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
ANU SETH - Appellant
Versus
SUNIL SETH - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 68 of 2015
Decided on : 30-09-2016

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.S.K.Srivastava, Advocate with appellant in person.
For the Respondent:Mr.Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.P.P.Tiwari and Ms.Sahiba Pantel, Advocates.

Important Point – Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against spouse or his relatives amount to causing mental cruelty.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Divorce – Cruelty on part of wife – After staying intermittently at matrimonial home, within less than three months of marriage, appellant/wife left for her parental home and despite respondent/husband repeatedly visiting and persuading her to join him, she served detailed legal notice making various accusations – Husband and his entire family had been subjected to worst kind of mental cruelty by wife in this case – Conduct of wife in instant case was such that it was not possible for husband to bear such type of cruelty – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. In the case of arranged marriages where both the spouses are in the age group of 30 plus, honeymoon period is the best time to know, understand and come close to each other. This case is an exception in the sense that just a day after the marriage the parties left for their honeymoon to Shimla and returned with bitter memories and a spoiled honeymoon.

2. Before applying for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, the respondent/husband has shown exceptional patience in dealing with the problem inspite of facing humiliation and scandalous allegations being made against him and his family members. The case is also different in a way that after staying intermittently at the matrimonial home, within less than three months of the marriage, the appellant/wife left for her parental home and despite the respondent/husband repeatedly visiting and persuading her to join him, she served detailed legal notice making various accusations.

3. Before replying the legal notice, again the respondent/husband tried to resolve the issues through their counsel by assuring of a separate accommodation for her on the assurance that none from their respective family would interfere for 5-6 months during that period. Even that did not succeed.

4. When the complaint before CAW Cell was filed on May 26, 2005, the respondent/husband while requesting for a copy of the complaint to properly reply the same the concluding lines written by him are that :

‘I again request the authority to make her understand that marriage is solemnised to form the family and not to destroy the sanskar of marriage please.’

5. The respondent/husband had to beat a hasty retreat when FIR No.763/2005 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC was registered on August 27, 2005 against him and his other family members including married sister and her husband (jija) and had to run for cover by applying for anticipatory bail. Unfortunately the counsel who applied and obtained anticipatory bail for the respondent/husband and his family from the Court of Law, was also in a soup when in a complaint under Domestic Violence Act, he was impleaded as respondent No.7 though he was in no way in domestic relationship with the appellant.

6. The voluminous record in this case pertains to a marriage which lasted just for three months. The marriage was solemnised on January 31, 2004. The parties at the time of their marriage were quite mature. While the respondent/husband Sunil Seth was aged about 33 years, the appellant/wife Anu Seth was aged about 31 years at that time. Both are well qualified. The respondent/husband is employed in AIIMS as UDC and the appellant/wife is Graduate and also having vocational skills i.e. Diploma in Boutique Embroidery.

7. The differences started just a day after when the parties went to Shimla for their honeymoon on February 02, 2004. The reasons given by the parties for the unpleasant honeymoon are:

(i) As per the respondent/husband, the appellant/wife did not allow him to consummate the marriage and tried her best to avoid him in the process. Not only that, she even threatened to commit suicide if he dare touch her body against her mood, willingness and consent.

(ii) The appellant/wife’s stand is that while in Shimla the respondent/husband, who is short tempered and behaves cruelly and gets irritated if anything is said or done against his dictates, declared that the status of a lady in their family is that of ‘a sandal in a foot’ and his words to be treated as God’s words, an averment which did not find mention in the detailed legal notice sent by her on March 14, 2005.

8. It is admitted case of the parties that after honeymoon when they returned to Delhi, the relationship was unlike a newlywed couple. The appellant/wife had been visiting her parents frequently. However, it is admitted case of the parties that they were behaving normally when both of them were together in Dehradun at the alleged Grehpravesh ceremony at the house of sister of the ap



















































































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