IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
NISHI - Appellant
Versus
JAGDISH RAM - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 72 of 2016
Decided on : 29-09-2016
Cruelty - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/wife appealed the dissolution of her marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing instances of cruelty by her husband. The court analyzed the evidence and testimonies of both parties to determine the validity of the claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband had proven instances of mental cruelty by the wife, including denial of sexual contact, false allegations, and frequent police involvement, leading to the dissolution of the marriage.
Issues: The main issue was whether the husband's claims of cruelty by the wife were substantiated and whether they justified the dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles established in previous cases to determine that denial of physical contact, filing false complaints, and causing mental harassment constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Final Decision: The court upheld the dissolution of the marriage, finding that the wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty, justifying the husband's petition for divorce.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated February 24, 2016 whereby the divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/husband has been allowed thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties.
2. The social and economic status of the parties to this appeal can be inferred from their respective residential addresses. The marriage was arranged through a charitable trust of a mandir. The respondent/husband though an employee (UDC) with MCD, the appellant/wife was doing some private job earning about Rs.6,000 - Rs.7,000 per month and was having a mother with no source of income.
3. The appellant/wife entered the matrimonial home nurturing a dream to have separate home for two of them only. The respondent/husband was shouldering the family responsibilities and was not comfortable in having a separate accommodation or bear the unnecessary burden of paying the rent and running two kitchens. Since the appellant/wife was not even allowing him cohabitation for days together, may be to put a pressure on him to concede to her demand to have a separate house, mid way found by him was to make some arrangement in the same house. He along with his wife shifted to the first floor within a few months of marriage. Apparently it was a perfect solution to strike a balance between sharing family responsibilities and meeting the demand of his newly-wed wife to make her happy. Even this could not succeed as the respondent/husband has claimed that he was not allowed to sleep on the first floor by his wife leaving no option for him but to sleep at the ground floor. Birth of a son to the parties also did not bring any change in their life so far as this issue was concerned. The appellant/wife left the matrimonial home on December 08, 2007 after making various police complaints against the husband and in-laws. A small issue i.e. to have separate accommodation could not be settled by the parties even after about four years of their togetherness. At the bottom of the problem, fault appears to be with the approach of the parties to tackle the issue.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/wife got married to the respondent/husband on November 29, 2003 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple was blessed with a son bon on August 02, 2005. The parties have been living separately since December 08, 2007 and the son is in custody of his mother.
5. The divorce petition was filed by the respondent/husband citing various instances of cruelty root of which was allegedly in the desire of the wife/appellant to live separately from her in-laws. Although in the divorce petition numerous instances starting from 4-5 days after the marriage are pleaded but even as per the respondent/husband the same were on petty issues. The differences started when after 15-20 days of the marriage the appellant/wife started pressurizing him to get separated from his parents which he ignored. Soon it became a routine as everyday in the morning she would pick-up a quarrel and on his return from duty till night the issue will continue. The situation reached to the extent that the appellant/wife on not getting her demand of separate accommodation being acceded to, started denying sexual contact with her for days together. In March 2004 in the same house, she was provided separate accommodation but her attitude remained unchanged. She did not allow the husband to sleep with her on the first floor thereby compelling him to sleep on the ground floor in the same house.
6. On December 08, 2007 she again picked-up quarrel, abused her in-laws and called the police resulting into initiation of proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent/husband. Thereafter she called her sister and brothers and after taking her belongings, left the matrimonial home along with the son and despite repeated efforts being made b
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.