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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RITU BAHRI, MANISHA BATRA, JJ.
Major Sumit Joshi – Petitioner
Versus
Aditi Sharma – Respondent
FAO-M No.324 of 2017
Decided On : 17-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanwar Yuvraj Singh, Mr. Rajesh Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Raman Mahajan.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) - Appeal against refusal of marriage dissolution on grounds of cruelty - Allegations of mental and physical cruelty made but found not substantiated by trial court - Court emphasized that mental cruelty relates to behavior affecting the mental wellbeing of a spouse - Irretrievable breakdown established by prolonged separation and ongoing animosity, compelling court to grant divorce. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

(B) Mental Cruelty - Defined as conduct inflicting mental pain, leading to a state where a spouse finds it unreasonable to continue married life - Criteria include social context and individual circumstances - Judgment cites cases establishing separation for an extended period as evidence of breakdown. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought divorce claiming cruelty, citing various instances of the respondent's behavior including secretive conduct, distancing from matrimonial duties, and prolonged separation. The respondent denied these claims and cited harassment by the petitioner. The nisi prius court dismissed the petition, concluding no evidence substantiated the claims of cruelty.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the marriage was effectively over due to irretrievable breakdown characterized by lengthy separation and unsubstantiated claims of cruelty. Both parties' inability to reconcile and history of mutual accusations affirming disintegration of marital ties led to dissolution of marriage being seen as the only avenue for relief.

Issues: The main issues considered were whether mental cruelty was established and if prolonged separation could be grounds for divorce despite lacking explicit statutory provision for irretrievable breakdown.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of corroborated evidence for alleged cruelty by the respondent, combined with the extensive separation period, pointed to an irreparable breakdown of the marriage, warranting the dissolution of the marital bond.

Result: Appeal allowed; divorce granted.

Table of Content
1. grounds of cruelty established. (Para 3)
2. claim of dissatisfaction from both parties. (Para 4)
3. petitioner's claims contested with counterarguments. (Para 10 , 11)
4. legal definitions and interpretation of cruelty. (Para 13 , 14)
5. granting of divorce order due to irretrievable breakdown. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

(Manisha Batra, J).

Having lost his case of seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (hereinafter to be mentioned as "the Act") before the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, the husband has knocked at the door of this Court by filing the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per the nomenclature as given in the original petition as filed by the petitioner-husband.

3. The case as set up by the petitioner is that he got married with the respondent-wife on 29.11.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A simple marriage was performed between the parties. There was no demand of dowry. Just after the marriage, the parties had gone to Mauritius for their honeymoon. The behaviour of the respondent was not normal since the very inception of their marital life and she acted in a strange manner at the airport itself while going to Mauritius by disappearing and on search being made by the petitioner, was found sitting in an isolated place. She argued and quarreled with the petitioner on trivial matters even on honeymoon. The parties started residing at their matrimonial house at Panchkula after their marriage. The house of parents of the respondent was situated nearby and she visited there almost every day without seeking consent from the petitioner or his parents. Her behaviour was secretive and rude. She did not render any help in performing domestic chores. She compelled the petitioner and his parents to serve everything to her in her bedroom. She used to make secretive talks on her cell phone and did not allow the petitioner and his family members to enter her room. In the month of March 2011, the petitioner who is an Army Officer was posted at Leh which was a Field posting. During that time, instead of staying at her matrimonial house, the respondent insisted for staying with her mother. She did not visit her matrimonial house in the absence of the petitioner at all. The petitioner had subsequently called her at Leh. The parties had gone abroad on their first Anniversary and on returning back, the respondent insisted to stay with her mother by making one pretext or the other and stayed there till September 2012. She joined the company of the petitioner after making lot of persuasions and pleadings by him. She had become pregnant and came back in January 2013. A female child was born to the parties on 07.08.2013. After discharge from the Command Hospital, Panchkula, the respondent instead of going to her matrimonial house, went to her parental house. She refused to join the company of the petitioner when he had been transferred to Bhopal and it was only after making many efforts that she had joined him there. While staying at Bhopal, the respondent caused embarrassment to the petitioner by making false and frivolous complaints against him. It was alleged that the mother of the respondent used to interfere in their matrimonial life thereby aggravating the situation. The petitioner while submitting that he could not lead a normal married life with the respondent, because of her behaviour, prayed for dissolution of marriage between them.

4. The respondent filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. It was submitted that the marriage of the parties was fixed through some matrimonial advertisement. The parents of the petitioner had concealed the fact that he was a short Service Commissioned Officer at that time and had represented that he was a Commissioned Officer with Indian Army having rank of Captain. It was alleged that the pare

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