Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDHIR SINGH, SUMEET GOEL, JJ.
Mickey Prem Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Kiran Bhagat – Respondent
FAO-M-12 of 2022 (Q&M), FAO-M-225 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate; For the Respondent

The court clarified that normal marital disagreements do not constitute cruelty and emphasized the need for clear evidence to prove desertion.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13 and 9 - Appeals against dismissal of divorce petition and decree for restitution of conjugal rights - Appellant-husband alleged mental cruelty and desertion by respondent-wife - Court found no evidence of cruelty or desertion, emphasizing normal wear and tear in marriage - Appeals dismissed. (Paras 9, 21, 34, 40)

(B) Cruelty - Defined as conduct endangering the living of a spouse - Allegations of character assassination must be supported by evidence - Mere irritation or normal marital discord does not constitute cruelty. (Paras 25, 26, 36)

(C) Desertion - Requires proof of intentional abandonment without consent - Court ruled that leaving for justified reasons does not constitute desertion. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
Marriage between parties was solemnized on 27.04.2013, with no issues born. The appellant filed for divorce citing mental cruelty and desertion, while the respondent countered with a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. (Paras 3-5)

Findings of Court:
Appellant failed to prove allegations of cruelty or desertion; normal marital differences were present without justifiable grounds for divorce. (Paras 34, 40)

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. (Paras 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere annoyance does not amount to cruelty; desertion requires intentional abandonment without consent. (Paras 22, 34)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Mr Sudhir Singh, J.

This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

2. FAO-M-12-2022 has been preferred by the appellant-husband against the judgement dated 13.12.2021, whereby the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act filed by him, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereas in FAO-M-225-2018, challenge is to the judgement and decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar (Mohali) on 14.05.2018.

FAQ-M-12-2022

3. Undisputed facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.04.2013, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Mohali. There is no issue born out of the wedlock. At the time of the marriage, the respondent-wife was serving as a Rural Medical Officer in Punjab, whereas the appellant-husband was serving as Manager Administration (HR) in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Chennai.

4. The divorce petition filed by the appellant contained the allegations of faulty behavior on the part of the respondent-wife and her having pressurized the appellant-husband to leave his job at Chennai and start a factory and open a hospital for her at Chandigarh. It was further averred in the petition that the respondent-wife used to pick up quarrels with the appellant on trivial issues; that though the appellant took the respondent-wife to his place of posting at Chennai and also planned a trip to the backwaters of Kerala, Kanya Kumari and Trivandrum, yet her behavior did not change; that when the appellant came to Chandigarh on 26.07.2013 to attend a family function, he found that the whereabouts of the appellant-wife were not known, but she came back to her matrimonial home only when the appellant reached there; that when the appellant asked her about this, she started abusing and using a foul language and that on 04.08.2013, the appellant took the respondent to Chennai, but she did neither show any love and affection towards the appellant, nor did she show any interest in the household work.

5. It was yet further averred in the petition that the appellant had planned a trip to Europe and had deposited an amount of Rs.5 lakh with the travel agent and both the parties had been called by the Swiss Embassy at Mumbai for a VISA meeting in September, 2013, but the respondent-wife did not turn up, leading to the loss of Rs.50,000/- for cancellation of tickets. Thereafter, on 11.10.2013, a meeting was convened by the parents of the appellant with the parents and family members of the respondent-wife and the respondent-wife had assured that she would improve her behavior. The parties resided together at the matrimonial home till 16.10.2013. On 17.10.2013, they both left for Chennai and on 02.11.2013 and came back to Chandigarh to celebrate Diwali. Again on 10.11.2013, they left for Chennai. The appellant-husband further averred that he could not join two years' Postgraduate Executing MBA Programme at the prestigious SP Jain Institute of Management and Research Mumbai, due to mental stress and agony suffered at the hands of the respondent-wife. On 05.01.2014, the respondent-wife came to Chandigarh and till her return to Chennai on 20.02.2014, she remained at her matrimonial home only for two days. It was further averred that grandmother of the appellant expired on 29.03.2014, but she did not offer any condolence to the appellant and his family members. The respondent-wife even refused to join their marriage anniversary celebrations. Apart from that the respondent-wife accompanied her mother and brother to the cousin brother of the husband at Chandigarh on 23.09.2014 and her mother said that there was no point in the wife going to her husband as he was incapable of consummating the marriage. The respondent-wife had filed a false complaint dated 27.11.2015 before the Punjab State Women Commission, Chandigarh, leveling unfound