Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 5639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Rashmi Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Deepak Sharma - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 146 of 2022 and CM APPL. 40883-85 of 2022 & CM.APPL.25821 of 2023
Decided On : 19-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Narender Baisoya, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that in cases of matrimonial disputes, the court must consider the overall facts, circumstances, and the kind of relationship shared between the parties to determine whether cruelty was meted out. It also emphasizes the significance of mutual trust, compatibility, and the impact of long separation on the matrimonial bond.

Headnote:
Cruelty - Dissolution of Marriage - Family Court Act, 1984, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and CPC, 1908 - Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife sought setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, dissolving the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty by the respondent-husband.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court found in favor of the respondent-husband, holding that he had successfully proved his case under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and consequently dissolved the marriage.
Issues: The issues included whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and whether the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the allegations of cruelty, the conduct of the parties, and the lack of reconciliation, ultimately finding that the acts of the appellant amounted to cruelty towards the respondent, justifying divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court upheld the dissolution of the marriage and disposed of the appeal and pending applications accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 151 CPC, 1908 has been preferred by the appellant-wife seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2022 passed by learned Family Court in HMA No.1030/2012, whereby marriage between the parties has been dissolved under the provisions of Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The facts as narrated in the present appeal by the appellant-wife are that her marriage with respondent-husband was solemnized on 18.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

3. However, she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent, therefore, she filed a complaint before Crime Against Women Cell, Srinivaspuri, New Delhi on 21.10.2011 and another complaint was filed on 15.11.2011 at Police Station Sangam Vihar. According to appellant, on 05.03.2012, she was mercilessly beaten by respondent and his family members and was thrown near her parents house threatening her to never come back. The appellant claims that at the relevant time, she was in the family way and on 03.10.2012, she gave birth to a female child.

4. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage, wherein he stated that after solemnization of marriage parties cohabitated together, however, no child was born out of this wedlock.

5. The learned Family Court upon completion of pleadings, the learned trial court vide orders dated 30.07.2013 and 11.03.2015, framed the following issues:-

"i. Whether the respondent, after solemnization of marriage, has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce as prayed for?" OPP

iii Relief"

6. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the appellant filed another petition under the provisions of Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against respondent and his family members.

7. In support of their case, the parties examined themselves before the learned Family Court, appellant-wife as RW-1 and respondent-husband as PW-7. Learned Family Court based upon the averments of the parties and testimony recorded during evidence, made the following observations on the issues framed:-

"ISSUE NO. 1

8.4 Petitioner has also given various instances in his affidavit along with the dates of the same. Respondent though has denied the same in her written statement as well as in her affidavit but nothing concrete has come out of the cross examination of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent argued that petitioner in replication has denied that the child belongs to him. It may be mentioned that in para no. 3 of the replication, petitioner has denied the whole facts as stated in para no 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement and though he has stated that the child does not belong to him but during his cross examination his has clearly admitted that the child belongs to him and he is the father of the child. So, to say that it is the petitioner who committed cruelty upon the respondent will be a wrong fact. Respondent has stated in her cross examination that after 1 and half months of the marriage, the petitioner demanded motorcycle and thereafter again demanded Rs.50,000/-cash She has further stated that she gave a complaint in the CAW Cell, Sri Niwas Puri, Delhi. She has stated this fact regarding the beatings given by the petitioner and his family members. She has not filed any medical documents on record. She has also admitted about the filing of the DV Act petition and its dismissal. She has not filed any appeal against that order till date. Respondent has further stated that on 05.03 2012 she sustained injury on her head, eye and hand but she has not filed any medical documents to substantiate her allegations. She herself has admitted that she did not get herself medically examined. It seems that all these pleas which have been tak