Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Ruma Chakraborty - Appellant
Versus
Pranab Kumar Chakraborty - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) No. 246 and 247 of 2023
Decided On : 07-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Manali Singhal, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Sachin, Advocate, Ms. Aanchal Kapoor and Mr. Deepak Singh Rawat, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the definition and establishment of desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court emphasized the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without consent and without reasonable cause as the key legal principle.

Headnote:
Desertion - Matrimonial Dispute - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia), Section 13(1)(ib), Section 9, Section 28, Section 96, Section 151 - The court discussed the grounds of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It highlighted the definition of cruelty and desertion as per legal precedents and emphasized the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without consent and without reasonable cause. The court found that the respondent neglected the appellant and their child, leading to a clear case of desertion. The appeals were allowed, and the appellant was granted divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought divorce from the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights, which was allowed by the learned Family Court. The parties had been living separately for more than 7 years, and the appellant alleged neglect, cruelty, and desertion by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent neglected the appellant and their child, leading to a clear case of desertion. It also noted that the respondent had taken double standards by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act, showing that the appellant was cruel toward him while claiming to be willing to live with his wife. The court set aside the judgments of the learned Family Court and granted divorce to the appellant under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Issues: The issues framed by the court included territorial jurisdiction, cruelty, desertion, and entitlement to relief. The parties raised counter allegations of committing cruelty, and the court considered the conflict in judgments to avoid conflicting appreciation of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without consent and without reasonable cause as the definition of desertion. It noted that the conduct of the respondent demonstrated neglect of the appellant and their child, leading to a clear case of desertion. The court also highlighted the concept of marriage and the continuous course of conduct required to establish desertion.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellant was granted divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The impugned judgments of the learned Family Court were set aside, and a decree was drawn accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The above captioned first appeal [MAT.APP.(F.C.) 246/2023] has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 13.05.2010 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby her petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and desertion under section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce from respondent-husband has been dismissed.

2. The above captioned second petition [MAT.APP.(F.C) 247/2023] under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 96 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has also been filed by the appellant seeking setting aside of the order dated 13.05.2010 whereby petition under Section 9 of the Act, filed by her husband i.e. respondent herein, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights, has been allowed by the learned Family Court.

3. The brief background of these appeals, as contemplated by the appellant, are that the parties got married on 14.12.1998 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Kanpur, U.P. and after marriage, she was taken to Rai Bareilly, U.P., which is her matrimonial home. The marriage was duly consummated and one female child was born out of the wedlock on 23.12.1999.

4. The respondent prior to his marriage with the appellant was a widower and having one daughter from his first marriage who was living with his mother and other family members at his native place at Rae Bareilly, U.P. Also, it was in the knowledge of the parties that appellant having suffered meningitis, was hard of hearing from one ear.

5. The appellant in the present appeal as well as before the learned Family Court averred that at the time of marriage between the parties, her father had given a sum of Rs.13,250/- in cash and a cheque of Rs.22,000/- as gift for purchase of household articles like refrigerator and washing machine. The appellant has alleged that soon after her marriage, upon reaching Rae Bareli, respondent took all her jewellery articles and rushed to the bank to put in his brother's locker, to which she did not object in good faith.

6. The appellant has averred that after living for a few days in Rae Bareilly, U.P, the respondent took her to reside at Nagda, M.P. by the end of December, 1998, where he was employed and had an official quarter.

7. The appellant whenever asked the respondent to purchase the fridge and washing machine out of the money gifted in the marriage, he informed that the money was already given to someone to purchase those items. However, later she got to know that respondent had made a Fixed Deposit Receipt out of the said amount, due to which she felt shocked and hurt and upon her cross-questioning, the respondent threatened her to go back to her parents house.

8. The appellant has alleged that respondent showed no inclination to develop intimacy with the appellant, nor she was consulted in any decision and was merely treated like an object to do unpaid household chores, including sweeping, swabbing floor, washing clothes, cooking and clearing utensils etc. The respondent even refused to engage a maid for appellant's help.

9. The appellant pleaded that since the inception of marriage, she had been a devoted wife, however, was never respected, cared, or afforded any love and affection by the respondent.

10. The appellant also averred that after she conceived pregnancy in April, 1999, but the respondent did not care for her and made her do all household chores in such state of health, even though at the relevant time his mother and daughter from first marriage were also staying with them. Despite doctors advise, she was not allowed to take bed rest and made to do all house hold chores. When her parents visited them in July, 1999, they were shocked to see the ill treatment meted out to appellant by the respondent and his family members. Thereafter, respondent left the appellant at her parents' house in Delhi in September, 1999 and all the medical expenses for delivery of the child were borne by her parents and no money was offered by r