Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 4052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Devender Govind Ram Ravin – Appellant
Versus
Rekha – Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 146 of 2019 & CM APPL. 23993 of 2019
Decided On : 11-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Chirag Khurana, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate with respondent in person.
Ms. Rushali Agarwal, Mr. Harshit Goel and Mr. Yashwanth Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the essence of marriage lies in cohabitation and conjugal relationship, and long periods of continuous separation and filing of false complaints can constitute mental cruelty and grounds for divorce.

Headnote:
Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Section 13 (1) (ia) & 13 (1) (ib) - [Narendra vs K. Meena, (2016)9 SCC 455, Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007)4 SCC 511, Gurbux Singh vs Harminder Kaur, (2010)14 SCC 301, Nishi Vs. Jagdish Ram, 233(2016) DLT 50, K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita, (2014)16 SCC 34, Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj, (2020)3 SCC 786] - The court discussed the essence of marriage, cohabitation, and conjugal relationship, and referred to legal provisions and interpretations from various cases to establish the grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, citing instances of harassment, refusal to live together, and false criminal cases filed by the respondent. The respondent alleged dowry harassment, cruelty, and forced abortion, and claimed that the appellant was a drunkard and treated her with cruelty.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the parties were unable to sustain their matrimonial relationship, and the respondent's insistence on the appellant to abandon his parents and live as 'ghar jamai' amounted to cruelty. The court also noted the long period of continuous separation and the filing of false complaints as acts of mental cruelty. It concluded that the respondent had deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of cruelty, desertion, and the impact of long separation on the matrimonial relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in various cases to determine the grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion, emphasizing the importance of cohabitation and conjugal relationship in a marriage.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and granted the divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) & 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The petitioner/appellant (petitioner in the divorce petition hereinafter referred to as the `appellant') has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 07.02.2019 vide which his petition for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) & 13 (1) (ib) on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant got married to the respondent on 29.05.2001 according to the Hindu Custom and Rites. According to him within four months of marriage, the behavior of the respondent/wife became aggressive and within six months she informed him that she was not willing to live with the appellant. Her family came and took her back to Delhi in February, 2002. The petitioner/appellant made sincere efforts in March, 2002 to convince her to join back the matrimonial home, but she refused as she and her family members wanted him to shift from Gujrat to Delhi and stay in their house as ghar-jamai to which he did not agree since he had aged parents to take care of.

3. It is further asserted that from their wedlock one daughter was born on 22.06.2002, but he was not informed about the birth of the child. He made an endeavor to meet the child on 06.04.2004 but was not permitted. He even approached the Gujrat Samaj Panchayat for resolution of their differences, but the respondent failed to appear before the Panchayat.

4. The appellant finding no way to bring her back filed a petition for divorce before the learned Civil Judge, Anand, Gujrat, but after the Notice was served, the respondent and the family members assured him that they would reconcile the differences and the respondent would join back the matrimonial home. Consequently, he did not pursue the Divorce petition which got dismissed in default on 06.04.2005.

5. The respondent thereafter, filed a criminal case under Section 498A/406 IPC making false allegations against the petitioner, but they have been acquitted in the said FIR No.85/2007 on 25.04.2016. A petition under Domestic Violence Act was also filed against the appellant after ten years of their marriage.

6. It is asserted that all his endeavours to reside as a family did not yield any result. The respondent has been living away from the appellant since February, 2002. The appellant thus, sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

7. The respondent in her written statement asserted that soon after the marriage, and she was harassed on account of dowry and demand for jewelry, clothes etc. Despite about Rs.8 lakhs having been spent on the marriage, the appellant and his family members did not like the dowry articles and refused to accept the same. It is with great persuasion that they accepted the gift articles after taking cash of Rs.50,000/-. It is further asserted that petitioner is a drunkard and treated her with cruelty. He used to beat her and not even provide her with the meals. She overheard the appellant and his family making a scheme to kill her. Faced with such adversity and cruel behavior, she left the matrimonial home on 17.03.2002.

8. The respondent had further asserted that when she was two month pregnant, she was forced to abort the first child. She thereafter, had a daughter despite which no efforts whatsoever was made by the appellant or his family members to ever come and visit the child or enquire about her well being. The respondent submitted that it was because of the cruel conduct and behavior of the appellant that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. She denied having committed any cruelty towards the appellant.

9. Submissions heard.

10. Admittedly, the respondent and the appellant were unable to live in a conjugal relationship and the respondent went to her parental home in February, 2002. Their daughter was born in the parental home of the respondent. According to the appellant he went to see the daughter in April, 2004, but was not permitted to meet her.

11. The appellant had made allegations of being subjected to cruel