Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Sunil Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Preeti Sharma – Respondent
Mat. App. (F.C.) No. 116 of 2021
Decided On : 02-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Md. Azam Ansari, Advocate. with Mr. Ashfaque Ansari, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Goswami with Mr. Tarun Goomber & Mr. Pankaj Mendiratta, Advs.

Mental cruelty can be a ground for divorce and includes verbal abuses and insults that cause mental pain and suffering. The court must consider the conduct of the parties, the effect on the mind of the petitioner, and the social background of the parties. The Family Court has the power to strike off the defense of a party for non-compliance with court orders.

Headnote:
Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - The appellant appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act to quash the judgment of the Family Court granting divorce to the respondent. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - The Family Court granted divorce to the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of mental cruelty. Protection of Woman against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - The respondent initiated a proceeding under Section 12 of the DV Act, which is pending adjudication before another court. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 8 Rule 1A - The appellant's defense was struck off by the Family Court for non-compliance with court orders. The court relied on Order 8 Rule 1A which mandates the defendant to file documents at the time of presenting the written statement. Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 14 - The Family Court has the power to receive any evidence, whether or not it is relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, if it would assist in dealing with the dispute effectively. However, Section 14 does not exempt the Family Court from the application of Order 8 Rule 1A of the CPC. Indian Evidence Act - The court did not discuss any specific provisions of the Indian Evidence Act in this judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/husband appealed to quash the divorce granted to the respondent/wife by the Family Court. The appellant alleged that the Family Court erred in striking off his defense and not allowing him to lead his evidence. The issues to be adjudicated were whether the Family Court was right in striking off the appellant's defense and whether the respondent was able to prove cruelty with evidence. The parties attempted reconciliation but failed. The respondent had also filed a proceeding under the Protection of Woman against Domestic Violence Act. The appellant failed to comply with various court orders regarding payment of maintenance. The Family Court struck off the appellant's defense due to non-compliance. The appellant challenged the judgment on the grounds that the Family Court did not allow him to lead his evidence. The Family Court relied on the respondent's testimony and granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The appellant alleged that the respondent's allegation of sexual weakness/impotency was not proved. The appellant did not provide any evidence to support his claims. The Family Court found the respondent's testimony reliable and trustworthy and concluded that the appellant subjected the respondent and their children to cruelty. The Family Court relied on the respondent's testimony and documents to prove the allegations of cruelty. The appellant's defense was struck off due to non-compliance with court orders. The appellant's contention that the Family Court relied on the allegation of impotency was not accepted as there was no finding in this regard. The Family Court granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The appellant's conduct showed that he did not fulfill his responsibilities as a husband and father. The appellant deliberately did not comply with court orders regarding payment of maintenance. The Family Court was justified in striking off the appellant's defense. The appellant failed to prove that the respondent's allegations were false or that he was bearing the family's expenses. The Family Court's judgment was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court relied on the respondent's testimony and documents to prove the allegations of cruelty. The appellant's defense was struck off due to non-compliance with court orders. The Family Court granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mental cruelty can be a ground for divorce and it includes verbal abuses and insults that cause mental pain and suffering. The court considered the conduct of the parties, the effect on the mind of the petitioner, and the social background of the parties. The court found that the appellant's conduct amounted to mental cruelty and justified the grant of divorce. The court also held that the Family Court has the power to strike off the defense of a party for non-compliance with court orders.
Result: The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Family Court granting divorce to the respondent was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The appellant/husband preferred this appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 to quash and set aside the judgment dated 10.08.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi in HMA No. 388 of 2011 titled as Smt. Preeti Sharma Vs Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma. The Family Court granted divorce by the impugned judgment in favour of the respondent/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as HMA).

2. The necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 22.05.1997 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at respondent’s father’s house in New Delhi. The parties cohabited as husband and wife, and two daughters were born out of the wedlock.

3. Soon after the marriage, the relationship between the couple turned sour. Marital differences cropped up between the parties and the divorce petition was preferred by the respondent on grounds of continuous acts of cruelty inflicted by the appellant upon the respondent. The Family Court allowed the divorce petition against the appellant by the impugned judgment.

4. The appellant in the present appeal alleges that the Family Court has erred in striking out the defence of the appellant, and not allowing the appellant to lead his defence evidence, and granted divorce by relying on the allegations of the respondent, which are contrary to submissions on record.

5. The issues which require adjudication in this case are as follows:

(i) Whether the Family Court was right in striking off the defence of the appellant?

(ii) Whether the respondent/wife was able to prove the charge of cruelty with cogent evidence against the appellant/husband before the Family Court?

6. The appellant and the respondent appeared before us, and we interacted with them, with a view to explore the possibility of reconciliation. The parties agreed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to settle their dispute with regard to the alimony and maintenance for both the daughters. However, the parties could not reach to a settlement, and the matter was referred back to the court. Accordingly, we heard the submissions of the parties on merits and reserved judgment.

7. After the relations between the parties soured, the respondent wife initiated a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act), which is pending adjudication before learned MM, Saket Courts, South District, Delhi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that due to societal pressure, it took so long for the respondent to take the first step and file the said case. In the aforesaid case, vide order dated 15.04.2010, the learned MM granted interim relief to the respondent and directed the appellant to leave the shared household and refrain from visiting the school of the children. Hence, on 18.04.2010, the appellant left the house of the petitioner/respondent and till date they have been living separately. The submission of the respondent is that the said order was passed, after the learned MM was satisfied that the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2015 by the learned ASJ, Saket Courts, Delhi. The respondent, thus submits, that the finding of cruelty against the appellant stood affirmed and became final. As a counter blast to the case under DV Act, the appellant also filed a complaint against the respondent and her father.

8. The respondent then filed the divorce petition based on the order dated 15.04.2010 of the learned MM on the prima facie findings of cruelty meted out by the appellant.

9. The appellant denied the allegations of the respondent. He claimed that the respondent harassed the appellant mentally and physically, an