Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Pramod - Appellant
Versus
Umesh @ Poonam - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 63 of 2021
Decided On : 01-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
In person with Mr. Jatiin Mongia & Mr. Anatesh Bannon, Advocates, for the Appellant.
In person with Mr. Hemant Kumar Srivastava & Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:
Cruelty - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 13(1)(ia), Section 28, Section 19 - [Cruelty] - [Divorce] - [Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia), Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 28, Section 19]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/husband filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage with respondent-wife on the grounds of cruelty. The appellant alleged that the respondent's conduct, including non-contribution in household chores, threats of suicide, false implication, and recurring abandonment of the matrimonial home, constituted cruelty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to provide specific instances of cruel treatment by the respondent-wife and that the allegations were vague, non-specific, and general in nature. The court also noted that the respondent had performed household chores and that the appellant had not substantiated his allegations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant failed to prove specific instances of cruelty by the respondent-wife and that asking a son to separate from his family amounted to cruelty. The court also emphasized that reckless, false, and defamatory allegations against the husband and family members constituted mental cruelty.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and granted divorce to the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed by the appellant/husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 in HMA No. 371/17, against Judgment dated 25.11.2019, whereby his petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the HMA, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage with respondent-wife on the grounds of cruelty, was dismissed.

2. The circumstances, as spelt out in the present appeal, which led the appellant to file petition for divorce before the learned Family Court, are that appellant/husband married with the respondent/wife on 10.03.2007 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and one son was born from the said wedlock on 08.02.2008.

3. According to appellant, his marriage has been tumultuous since the beginning due to the quarrelsome and uncompromising conduct of the respondent towards him and his family members at every juncture of life. It is claimed that the respondents' non-contribution in household chores, threats of suicide and false implication followed by recurring abandonment of matrimonial home, has been a chord of contention and was pleaded as a grounds for dissolution of marriage in his petition before the learned Family Court.

4. The appellant has averred that ever since he moved to Orissa for his training with CISF on 16.04.2007, the relationship between the respondent and his parents turned sour due to which the respondent briefly moved back to her maternal home with their new born son, only to return after much persuasion. However, due to continued disturbances, the appellant took a separate accommodation to live with respondent in December of 2008 at the place of his posting at Jharkhand.

5. The appellant claims that despite living separately, the respondent's resistance to household chores and unruly behavior towards him persisted. Ultimately, he was constrained to send her back to her matrimonial home in February, 2009 due to her threats to tarnish his image at his work place, from where the respondent went back to her parents house.

6. The appellant has alleged that the respondent, along with his family members, approached his Superior Officer and filed a complaint against him, due to which he had to take leave for 20-25 days to arrange for a separate accommodation at the insistence of respondent. However, the said accommodation too was abandoned by the respondent soon after the appellant left to Jharkhand to resume his duties.

7. The appellant has alleged that on 21.12.2010, at a family gathering (Bhandara ceremony for the brother of the petitioner), the respondent got into a quarrel with him and made a phone call to her parents. On 24.12.2010, her parents came to their matrimonial home along-with 10-12 persons and assaulted the appellant and his family members. The appellant was constrained to file a complaint bearing No. 4999051/2016, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C against the respondent and her family members.

8. The appellant has alleged that respondent-wife thereafter deserted him and started living with her parents. As a counter blast, the respondent on 28.02.2011 filed a complaint under Section 498A IPC, which culminated into registration of FIR No. 46/2011 at police station against him and his family members wherein allegations of dowry demand and physical abuse were raised by the respondent.

9. The appellant has averred that in order to save his matrimonial life, he preferred a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 03.03.2011 however, the same withdrawn by him on resistance by respondent.

10. Before the learned Family Court, respondent-wife in her written statement pleaded that she was constantly tortured at her matrimonial home on account of dowry demand and was beaten mercilessly. She pleaded that their marriage was solemnized with pomp and show and her father had spent a lot of money beyond his capacity and gave all necessary utensils, articles and jewelry etc. The respondent denied the allegation