Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 5451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Reena Devi - Appellant
Versus
Lal Dev Singh - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 179 of 2023 & CM APPL. 31521 of 2023
Decided On : 04-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Anil Hooda, Ms. Anju & Mr. Sunny Chauhan, Advocates with Appellant in person.
Ms. Poonam Mendirata & Ms. Somyashree, Advocates with Respondent in person.

IMPORTANT POINT
Unsubstantiated allegations of extramarital affairs and dowry demands constitute mental cruelty under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, warranting a decree of divorce.

Headnote:
Cruelty - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 (1)(ia)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and respondent got married in 2010 and had a daughter. Disputes arose due to the appellant's behavior, including neglect, withdrawal from physical intimacy, and false allegations against the respondent. The respondent left the matrimonial home in 2014, and the parties lived separately.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's conduct caused anguish and frustration to the respondent, leading to a fractured matrimonial life. The court concluded that the appellant's false allegations and reckless behavior amounted to cruelty, warranting a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Issues: 1) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty after marriage? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce?
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the cumulative effect of the parties' difficulties and found the appellant's conduct to be cruel. The court also emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations of extramarital affairs and dowry demands constitute mental cruelty.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of divorce granted to the respondent under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was upheld.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. An appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against the judgment dated 03.05.2023 granting divorce in a petition filed by the respondent/ husband under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act, 1955").

2. The facts in brief are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.06.2010 and one daughter, Tamanna, was born from the said wedlock on 11.04.2011 who is in the custody of the appellant/ wife (Respondent in the Divorce Petition and the appellant in the appeal hereinafter referred to as the "appellant"). However, after their marriage disputes arose between the parties due to which the respondent was forced to leave the company of the appellant on 24.10.2014. He was, thus constrained to file a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Act, 1955 on 13.04.2018.

3. According to respondent, after marriage, the respondent noticed that the appellant was spending most of the time with her younger sister Meena and when she came back to him in the bed room rather than talking to him and spending quality time with him, she would talk to her parents for hours together with scant regard for the respondent who would wait to spend time and talk to her. She made the respondent talk to her parents almost every day. He tried to explain to the appellant/ wife that these were the golden days of their marital wife and they should spent maximum time together, but he noticed a visible sadness on the face of appellant because of which he stopped saying anything to her on the subject. He gave her all the love, care and affection but the attitude of the appellant did not change as she continued to spend time chatting with her sister.

4. Over a period of time the respondent realized a great deal of dependency of the appellant on her younger sister as she would do everything in the household only after discussing and with the approval of the sister. Her interactions with her parents and sister increased after she conceived the child in the month of August-September, 2010 and she hardly had any physical intimacy with him, thereafter. The suggestions of the respondent to arrange separate rented accommodation for the sister did not meet with any approval on the pretext that it was not safe for a girl to live alone and she told him that the sister would always live with them.

5. The respondent further stated that his suggestion to bring his mother to Delhi to take care of the appellant during the pregnancy did not find favour and she informed that her mother would come for the delivery. Over a period of time, the respondent felt that the appellant was full of hatred for his mother and family members and wanted the respondent to severe all his ties from his family members. She would make faces and throw tantrums at the respondent to somehow avoid going to any function or marriage in the family.

6. The respondent further asserted that he met all the expenses of the delivery of the child. In addition to paying Rs.50,000/- towards the delivery charges, he also reimbursed the appellant for Rs.15,000/- which were paid by him from her card for purchase of medicines since at that time the debit card of the respondent was not working. He stated that the appellant went to stay with her parents after the delivery with an assurance that she would come back in a month, but returned only after five months.

7. The respondent contended that after the birth of the child, the behaviour of the appellant worsened. He brought a maid Savitri from his home town in Himachal Pradesh in August, 2011 to take care of the minor child and help in household chores. Initially the appellant was very happy to have the assistance of the maid, but she over a period of time started finding fault in her. The said lady was sent back but the appellant kept insisting about engaging another help for the child. Accordingly, the respondent brought another maid