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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri,Ashok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Devesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meenal – Respondent
FAO-M-208 of 2013
Decided On : 08-04-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant, Mr. Gautam Diwan, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, coupled with the respondent's conduct amounting to mental cruelty, justified granting the divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Headnote:

Cruelty - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly Section 13, in relation to the grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion. The court also referred to judgments in similar cases to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty, harassment, and desertion by the respondent-wife. The respondent contested the petition, denying the allegations and seeking dismissal of the petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding that the appellant had not been able to prove the grounds of cruelty, harassment, and desertion as alleged. The court also considered the compromise reached in a previous divorce petition filed by the appellant and the respondent.

Issues: The issues framed by the Family Court included the entitlement for a decree of divorce based on the alleged grounds, maintainability of the petition, estoppel from filing the petition, and cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent-wife's conduct, including filing false complaints and criminal proceedings against the appellant, amounted to mental cruelty. The court also considered the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the parties' long separation as grounds for granting the divorce.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the District Judge, Rohtak, was set aside. A decree of divorce was granted in favor of the appellant-husband, with a direction to make a permanent alimony payment to the respondent-wife.

ORDER

Ashok Kumar Verma, J. - The appellant-husband has come up in appeal before this Court seeking setting aside of judgment and decree dated 26.02.2013 passed by the District Judge, Rohtak, whereby petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the HMA') for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the HMA for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce pleading therein that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.11.1998 and the same was registered on 23.11.1998 at Rohtak. At the time of marriage, appellant-husband was posted at Srinagar and they lived there upto March, 2000. Respondent-wife insisted that delivery of the child should take place at Rohtak, therefore, appellant acceded to her request and they went to Rohtak, where they were blessed with a son, namely, Jalaj on 24.08.1999. Thereafter, appellant was transferred to Jammu and parties lived together there upto April, 2002. The appellant remained posted at Jammu upto September, 2002 and then was transferred to Lucknow. It is alleged by the appellant-husband that from the beginning of the marriage, conduct, behaviour and attitude of the respondent-wife had been cruel, unwarranted and harsh and she used to pick up quarrels over trifles without any justifiable cause. The respondent deserted the appellant in April, 2002 and since then she had not returned to matrimonial home, whereas appellant had always been giving love and affection to the respondent and his son. In the beginning of December, 1999 appellant had taken the respondent along with his son to his place of posting at Srinagar and at the request of respondent her mother was also taken there and appellant provided proper food, clothing and every good lodging facility to the respondent, her mother and the son. In mid December, 1999, respondent suffered with breast abscess and she was got treated and operated at Army Hospital, Srinagar. In December, 1999, respondent was again operated at PGIMS, Rohtak, as the said ailment had re-developed. In April, 2002, respondent went to the house of her parents at Rohtak and thereafter in spite of best efforts of the appellant, she did not return to her matrimonial home. Appellant had also written several letters from the place of his posting requesting respondent and her parents to send the respondent and his son to him but in vain. Whenever, appellant came on leave at Rohtak and tried to meet his wife and the child, respondent's parents did not allow him to meet them. Rather, Pawan, brother of the respondent, misbehaved with the appellant whenever appellant visited the house of his in-laws. Appellant also met the respondent in April, 2006 and requested her to accompany him and apprised her that he had booked seats for journey but she flatly refused to accompany him and threatened that if he tried to take her with him, she would commit suicide. It is further alleged that respondent failed to discharge her matrimonial duties and obligations and rather she ill-treated and mal-treated the appellant, caused physical and mental cruelty upon him, did not cooperate in married life and made his life hell. The respondent even failed to give any respect and regard to the parents of the appellant. When respondent expressed her desire to do a job, appellant agreed to her request and she had worked at Army Public School, Jammu, from July, 2001 to March, 2002. As in spite of best efforts made by the appellant, respondent did not join the matrimonial home, he was compelled to institute a divorce petition bearing No.58 of 2006. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat/mediation. During the course of these proceedings, respondent agreed to withdraw her complaint made to the Air Force authorities as well as the application for maintenance filed before the Senior Air Force Officer, on withdrawal of said petition by the appellant. T

              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