IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RITU BAHRI, MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, JJ.
Anmol Verma - Appellant
Versus
Radhika Sareen - Respondent
FAO No.6969 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided on : 05-07-2022
Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act - 13 - The court allowed the petition for divorce filed by the husband, holding that the respondent had subjected the petitioner to cruelty after their marriage and their marriage can be termed as a dead marriage. The court referred to various exhibits and observed that the respondent had incessantly filed complaints against the petitioner and his family members, resulting in harm to his image and reputation. The court also cited a Supreme Court judgment to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the respondent-wife was arrogant, rude, and frequently threatened to commit suicide. The respondent contested the claim, stating that the petitioner himself was guilty of deserting her at the instance of his mother and sister.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had subjected the petitioner to cruelty after their marriage and their marriage can be termed as a dead marriage. The court also observed that the respondent had incessantly filed complaints against the petitioner and his family members, resulting in harm to his image and reputation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty as alleged in the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent had subjected the petitioner to cruelty after their marriage, citing various exhibits and observations. The court also referred to a Supreme Court judgment to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and granted the petition for divorce filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
JUDGMENT :
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2019 as handed down by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula (for short, ‘the trial Court’) whereby the petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner-husband (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the petitioner’) against the respondent-wife (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the respondent’) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) for seeking the dissolution of their marriage by way of a decree of divorce, has been dismissed, the petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, as canvassed by the petitioner in the petition, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 26.09.2014 at Chandigarh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No issue has born out of this wedlock. The respondent is quite arrogant and rude person and she used to quarrel with him and his family members over petty matters and to frequently threaten to commit suicide. She did not attend the religious function of ‘Sai Sandhya’, arranged by his family, on 11.01.2015. He, along-with the respondent as well as his mother and sister, had gone to Mata Naina Devi Temple on 25.01.2015 to pay obeisance and the respondent created a scene and even slapped him there in the presence of the entire gathering and while returning from there, they visited the Gurudwara at Anandpur Sahib and she created nuisance there also. After returning to Panchkula, she left their home on 26.01.2015 and took away her belongings. Then, on 27.01.2015, she and her parents came to Panchkula and she (respondent) banged at the doors and windows of their house and shouted loudly and also threatened to involve him in some false complaint/case.
3. The petitioner has also averred that on 01.02.2015, the respondent called him and expressed her desire to end the relationship with him. On 09.02.2015 and again on 15.02.2015, she had come to their house at Delhi and had taken away all her belongings including her educational qualification certificates and clothes etc. On 26.02.2015, the respondent came there in the midnight at about 01.00 A.M. and started shouting. He opened the door and she entered into the house but throughout the night hours, she quarrelled with him and thus, mentally harassed him. On the same date, she again created a scene in the evening hours and started crying after deliberately locking the room of their house while he was in the office and sent messages to him and his mother threatening therein that she would commit suicide. In these circumstances, he got a DDR lodged at the Police Station at Delhi to seek protection from her. Then, she returned to her parental house at Ambala and again, visited his house at Panchkula alongwith her parents and tried to forcibly enter into the house. On 02.03.2015, she lodged a complaint with the Crime Against Women Cell against him, his mother and sister as well as his uncle but later-on, she made a statement before the police authorities to the effect that she did not want to pursue her complaint further and the same be filed and accordingly, the said complaint was filed. However, during the pendency of this complaint, he and his family members were called by the police authorities on 7th, 9th, 12th and 14th March, 2015 and the respondent and her parents misbehaved with them on the said occasions.
4. The petitioner has, further, averred that on 14.03.2015, the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police sent the parties to Baldev Nagar Police Station. The respondent again submitted a complaint against him and his family members there also and in pursuance of the same, the police arrested him by invoking the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.PC and prepared a Calendra against him and his mother. The respondent and her parents had also been challaned under the said provisions. He appeared before the Executive Magistrate, Ambala on six dates of hearing in respect of the ab
Ashok Kumar Jain Versus Sumati Jain (2013) 2 RCR(Civ) 835 (SC)
Joydeep Majumdar Versus Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar 2021 (2) RCR(Civ) 289
Savitri Pandey Versus Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 1 RCR(Civ) 719 (SC).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that persistent filing of false complaints and allegations by one spouse against the other can amount to mental cruelty, leading to the dissolution....
Divorce – Normal wear and tear of marital life is not a ground for divorce.
Cruelty, as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, requires substantial proof of conduct that severely impacts the mental or physical well-being of the other spouse, making cohabitation i....
Divorce cannot be granted on an isolated incident of cruelty by wife.
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.
The legal conception of cruelty and the kind of degree necessary to establish it under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was a key legal principle discussed in the judgment.
The court ruled that isolated incidents of alleged mental cruelty, lacking consistent evidence, do not justify the dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The judgment emphasizes the need for specific and substantiated allegations in divorce cases, and the requirement to prove mental disorder in cases seeking divorce on such grounds.
Divorce – Staying separate for more than a decade would not be construed to be an irretrievable break down of marriage.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for proving cruelty in a matrimonial relationship under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, emphasizing the need to distingu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.