Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Urmila Devi - Appellant
Versus
Uma Shankar - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 155 of 2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce - Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) - 1955 - [Cruelty, Desertion] - [Section 13(1)(ia), Section 13(1)(ib)] - The court allowed the divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, dissolving the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The court found that the respondent was treated with cruelty by the appellant and that the appellant had wilfully deserted the respondent, justifying the grant of divorce.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and respondent got married, but the respondent alleged that the appellant's behavior was cruel and that she had deserted him. The appellant denied the allegations and raised objections. The Family Court framed issues regarding cruelty and desertion. The court found in favor of the respondent, granting a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was treated with cruelty by the appellant and that the appellant had wilfully deserted the respondent, justifying the grant of divorce.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent since the solemnization of their marriage and the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's behavior constituted cruelty and that she had wilfully deserted the respondent, justifying the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and any pending application, upholding the grant of divorce to the respondent.
Key Points: - The appeal was filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking to set aside the decree and judgment dated 02.06.2008, which dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion (!) . - The learned Family Court framed issues regarding whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent and whether the respondent had deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of more than two years (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court held that the appellant's behaviour constituted cruelty and that she had wilfully deserted the respondent, justifying the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (!) . - The court noted that the appellant failed to prove that the marriage was consummated and did not properly contest the respondent's allegations (!) (!) . - The court found that the appellant's false allegations of dowry demands and her denial of cohabitation amounted to cruelty (!) (!) . - The court determined that the appellant had wilfully deserted the respondent, as she refused to join him on multiple occasions despite his efforts (!) (!) (!) . - The court, after reviewing the testimony of witnesses, concluded that the appellant deliberately withdrew from the company of her husband (!) (!) (!) . - The court observed that the respondent made efforts to reconcile, but the appellant was unwilling to return to the matrimonial home (!) . - The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of divorce was upheld (!) .
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking setting aside of the Decree and Judgment dated 02.06.2008 whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the petition filed by respondent/husband under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Act, 1955 and dissolved his marriage with appellant on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
2. The appellant/wife (respondent in the divorce petition hereinafter referred to as 'appellant ') got married to the respondent/husband (petitioner in the divorce petition hereinafter referred to as 'respondent ') according to the Hindu Rites and Customs on 03.03.1995 at Jaipur.
3. The respondent-husband averred before the learned Family Court that after his marriage with appellant-wife, she came to her matrimonial home on 05.03.1995 and her brother took her back for Vida and brought her back to the matrimonial home on the same night.
4. The respondent before the learned Family Court asserted that the marriage between the parties was not consummated and thus, there is no issue from this wedlock. According to the respondent, behaviour of the appellant towards him and his family members was cruel from the date of their marriage itself. The appellant did not permit cohabitation to happen and upon respondent trying the same, appellant quarrelled, fought, and misbehaved with him. The appellant deprived the respondent of conjugal rights and threatened him to get him beaten by her brother and also to get his parents involved in false dowry case.
5. The respondent further averred before the learned Family Court that despite his persuasion, appellant failed to perform her marital duties and denied staying with him and therefore, on being repeatedly threatened, he had no choice but to take her to her brother's house at Jaipur on 09.05.1995. However, after efforts for reconciliation made by the families of both the sides, she came back to her matrimonial home on 08.06.1995 but her behaviour towards the respondent and his family members did not improve and the appellant continued to misbehave with them. The respondent pleaded that on 11.06.1995, brothers of the appellant took her with them with all ornaments and clothes without his consent with an intention to bring an end to their marriage and despite best efforts, appellant did not return to her matrimonial home; rather threatened him to face dire consequences and also filed a complaint before the police. The appellant did not even join company of respondent on the wedding of his brother and sister despite invitation and did not come on the demise of his uncle on 21.01.1997. The respondent pleaded that the conduct of appellant caused great mental pain and agony to him. The respondent claimed that the appellant had deserted him since 11.06.1995 and not fulfilled her matrimonial duties and, therefore, he sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
6. The appellant in her written statement filed before the learned Family Court not only denied the allegations of the respondent but also raised a number of objections. She asserted that after the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home at Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan and their marriage was duly consummated on the very first night, however, no child was born out of the said wedlock. She further claimed that after their marriage, the respondent and his family members started taunting and abusing her for not bringing sufficient dowry, cash, jewellery and other items for the family of respondent. The appellant claimed that on 11.07.1995, her brothers had come to her matrimonial home to implore the respondent to let go of the demand of cash as they were unable to arrange money, however, they were told by the respondent that they should take her back in case they are not able to fulfil their demands and that if she does not leave, she will be thrown out of her matrimo
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds of cruelty and desertion, as provided under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were proven by the responden....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and substantiated instances of cruelty and desertion to support claims under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that making false and frivolous allegations against a spouse and subjecting them to a long trial constitutes cruelty, entitling the other spouse to....
Prolonged separation exceeding a decade constitutes mental cruelty, and refusal to resume cohabitation indicates desertion, justifying divorce under Hindu Marriage Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific instances of cruelty must be proven, and reckless, false, and defamatory allegations constitute mental cruelty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
