SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.M.S. BEDI, HARI PAL VERMA, JJ.
Sanjay Sehgal - Appellant
Versus
Sonia - Respondent
FAO-M-16-2016
Decided On : 18-05-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Payel Mehta, Adv.

Headnote:

Cruelty - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13, Section 23(1)(a) - The court discussed the concept of mental cruelty and its parameters as defined in various legal sources. It emphasized the need to evaluate each case based on its unique facts and circumstances, considering factors such as upbringing, sensitivity, cultural background, and societal values. The court also highlighted the requirement to prove cruelty in a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the impact of the conduct on the complaining spouse. The judgment emphasized that breakdown theory is not applicable for dissolving the marriage and that vague allegations of misbehavior are insufficient to constitute cruelty. The court found that the appellant failed to establish the allegations of cruelty and desertion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The respondent-wife was accused of rude behavior, refusal to perform matrimonial duties, using filthy language, and leaving the matrimonial home with the children. The court proceedings involved ex parte appearances and evidence presented by the appellant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and desertion. It emphasized the need to evaluate the concept of mental cruelty based on the unique facts and circumstances of the case. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that breakdown theory is not applicable for dissolving the marriage and vague allegations of misbehavior are insufficient to constitute cruelty.

Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of cruelty and desertion by the respondent-wife, the evidence presented by the appellant, and the applicability of the breakdown theory for dissolving the marriage.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to evaluate each case based on its unique facts and circumstances, considering factors such as upbringing, sensitivity, cultural background, and societal values. It highlighted the requirement to prove cruelty in a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the impact of the conduct on the complaining spouse. The judgment also emphasized that breakdown theory is not applicable for dissolving the marriage and that vague allegations of misbehavior are insufficient to constitute cruelty.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found that the appellant failed to establish the allegations of cruelty and desertion. The court emphasized the need to evaluate the concept of mental cruelty based on the unique facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

HARI PAL VERMA, J.

Appellant-husband has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby his petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage with the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant-husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.10.2007. After the marriage, parties lived together as husband and wife and two sons were born out of this wedlock. Appellant had sought divorce on the ground that from the very beginning of the marriage, respondent-wife was very rude and treated the appellant in an ill-will manner. She even did not perform her daily routine duties which a wife is expected in a matrimonial home. She refused to share the bed with him and also in habit of using filthy language with him as well as his family members. The family members of the respondent-wife used to interfere in their matrimonial life and under the influence of her parents, respondent used to pick up quarrel with the appellant and his family members. At the time of their marriage, respondent was undergraduate and the appellant encouraged her to improve her education. In this manner, she did M.Sc.(Zoology) after the marriage, and all the expenses were borne by the appellant. While the respondent used to remain busy in her study, parents of the appellant used to take care of her children. On number of occasions, respondent left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and she was taken back with the intervention of the Panchayat. She never treated the appellant in a respectful manner, but still the appellant tolerated her all kinds of bad and cruel behaviour expecting that sooner or later better sense shall prevail upon her and he will lead a happy married life. But instead of improving her behaviour, her attitude and conduct became more and more cruel towards the appellant. On 30.07.2011, the respondent in the absence of the appellant left the matrimonial home without prior intimation. While leaving the house, she took away all the gold and silver ornaments along with both the children. The appellant visited the house of the respondent's parents in order to bring her back to the matrimonial home. But the respondent refused to join his company and since then, she has been living separately from the appellant. The parents of the appellant convened several panchayats, but without any result.

3. Upon notice, respondent appeared through counsel. However, she did not appear in person before the Court despite specific directions to appear for reconciliation. On 20.07.2015 when the case was fixed for presence of the parties and no one appeared on behalf of respondent, she was proceeded against ex parte.

4. The appellant led ex parte evidence and examined himself as PW1, his father Khairati Lal as PW2 and one Bhagwan Singh as PW3. Certified copy of order dated 05.01.2015 (Ex.P1) and certified copy of petition (Ex.P2) were tendered in evidence. Ex.P1 is a copy of order passed by learned District Judge, Karnal in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties and vide order dated 05.01.2015, the said petition was dismissed in default. Similarly, Ex.P2 is a copy of a petition filed by the respondent-wife seeking dissolution of marriage as provided under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. The court below dismissed the petition, as the appellant failed to prove the allegations of cruelty. The Court held that in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, she had levelled serious allegations against the appellant who had given her merciless beatings and thrown her out of the matrimonial hom






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top