Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Alka – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Sharma – Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 156 of 2019 & CM APPLs. 26366 of 2019, 26367 of 2019, 26369 of 2019
Decided On : 17-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate with Appellant in person.
Ms. Geetika Dhawan & Mr. A.P.S. Chauhan, Advocates with Respondent in person.

Financial exploitation, assault, and false allegations of extramarital relationship constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, justifying the grant of divorce.

Headnote:
Condonation of delay - Family Court Act - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the dissolution of her marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court found evidence of financial exploitation, assault, and false allegations of extramarital relationship by the appellant, leading to the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant subjected the respondent to cruelty through financial exploitation, assault, and false allegations of extramarital relationship, leading to the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Issues: The issues were whether the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty, and whether the respondent was entitled to a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proven financial exploitation, assault, and false allegations of extramarital relationship by the appellant constituted cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, justifying the grant of divorce.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

CM APPL. 26366/2019 (Condonation of delay)

1. Vide the present application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of 50 days' delay in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the application is allowed. The delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 156/2019

4. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the appellant/wife (who was the Respondent in the divorce petition and is hereinafter referred to as the `appellant') against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi, wherein the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

5. The facts in brief, are that the parties to the present appeal got married on 15.01.2004 according to the Hindu rites and customs and were blessed with two children, namely, Bhakti Sharma and Agam Sharma on 16.02.2006 and 25.01.2007 respectively.

6. The respondent (who was the petitioner in the divorce petition and is hereinafter referred to as the "respondent") has claimed that the appellant's brother, namely, Shri Ajay, who is a close friend of the respondent since 2003, trapped him into the marriage with the appellant by misrepresentation. The appellant was Polio stricken, but this fact was concealed from the respondent. When the respondent/husband expressed his concerns about the physical deformity of the appellant, it was glossed over by the appellant's brother, namely, Shri Ajay who gave false assurances. It is only after the marriage that the respondent/husband came to know about the true facts about the appellant.

7. The grounds on which the divorce was sought was that the appellant threatened to commit suicide and to implicate the respondent and his family members in false criminal cases which compelled the respondent to maintain silence.

8. The respondent has further asserted that he paid various sums of money in cash on various occasions to the family members of the appellant/wife. The respondent purchased a plot of land measuring 100 sq. Yards for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of appellant on 28.08.2008. Another plot of land was purchased by the respondent on 12.11.2019 measuring 100 sq. yards, and the same was also in the name of appellant. The respondent also gave Rs.50,000/- to Shri Ajay for his marriage in the year 2009 and Rs.3,00,000/- was also given for purchasing an Alto Car. In all, the respondent paid Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- to Shri Ajay.

9. The respondent purchased a motorcycle for his daily routine, but the same was also taken away by Shri Ajay and was never returned to the respondent. When the respondent objected to his economic exploitation by the brothers of the appellant, he was mercilessly beaten by the appellant with the crutches.

10. The respondent has further claimed that the appellant never prepared or served food for him, whenever he returned from work. The appellant used to address him in a sarcastic manner and even called him "dog". She used to give iron butt blows to the respondent and threatened to administer poison to him through her brother who was a Doctor. The brother of the appellant begged forgiveness for the misbehaviour of the appellant and made a request to the respondent to purchase a Wagon R Car. In the expectation of improving the relations, the respondent started paying the instalments of the said car which was in his name but was in the possession of brother of the appellant.

11. The respondent asserted that in June, 2010, the son and the daughter of the respondent's sister came to the matrimonial home, but the appellant misbehaved with him and caused humiliation and mental harassment in front of his relatives.

12.