Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
S @ S - Appellant
Versus
C P - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 96 of 2018
Decided On : 07-05-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Charan Singh, Advocate.
Unsubstantiated allegations of adultery and demand of dowry amount to mental cruelty, and desertion without reasonable cause constitutes grounds for dissolution of marriage.
Headnote:
Delay in Refiling - Family Law - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19(1)
Fact of the Case:
The husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife alleged cruelty and demanded a two-room flat in New Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the husband, stating that the wife's conduct constituted cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also held that the wife had deserted the husband for a continuous period of not less than two years without reasonable cause.
Issues: Allegations of cruelty and desertion, demand of dowry, and adultery were contested.
Ratio Decidendi: Unsubstantiated allegations of adultery and demand of dowry amount to mental cruelty. The wife's conduct constituted cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also found that the wife had deserted the husband for a continuous period of not less than two years without reasonable cause.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of dissolution of the marriage was granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
CM APPL.18496/2018 (Delay in Refiling)
The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 instituted on behalf of the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 19 days’ in refiling the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. The delay of 19 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
CM APPL.18495/2018 (Condonation of Delay)
The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 instituted on behalf of the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of 34 days delay in filing the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. The delay of 34 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 96/2018
1. The present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assails the judgment and order dated 07.02.2018, passed by the learned Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in H.A No.1437/2014, titled as ‘C P vs. S @ S’, whereby the respondent’s (hereinafter referred to as the ‘husband’) petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.
2. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court struck the following issues:-
“1. Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent after solemnization of the marriage? OPP
2. Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, without any reasonable cause? OPP
3. Relief.”
3. The husband deposed that at the time of marriage he was residing at A-50, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi and was working as a property dealer in Delhi and NCR and that, after the marriage the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘wife’) came to the matrimonial home at 163, Satha, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh which was the parental house of the husband (hereinafter referred to as ‘the matrimonial home’). It was deposed that soon after the marriage, the wife went to her own parental home on 07.12.2008 and returned to the matrimonial home on or around 10.01.2009.
It was further deposed that she again went to her parental house on 03.03.2009 on the pretext of her first Holi celebrations and returned back on 07/08.04.2009. The wife is stated to have left for her parental home on 10.05.2009 when she was pregnant with the child of the parties and came back to her matrimonial home after 16.10.2009.
4. Furthermore, it was deposed on behalf of the husband that after the birth of their son, misunderstandings developed between the parties regarding their matrimonial residence. The husband desired that the wife should live with him at New Delhi but the latter refused to do so, on the pretext that the income of the husband was inadequate. The wife is also stated to have been uncomfortable at the matrimonial home and as a consequence thereof, went back to her parental home on 22/23.08.2009 for Raksha Bandhan and came back to the matrimonial home after Bhaiya Dooj festival on 07.11.2010 despite repeated calls by the husband. It was deposed that the wife had become short tempered and had started quarrelling frequently with the husband and his family members. She further insisted that the husband should purchase a two room flat in New Delhi as a precondition for her to live with him. It has been deposed that the wife went to her parental home on 24/25.12.2010 and came back in second week of January, 2011. It has been furthe
