Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rajan Roy, Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
Smt.Prabhpreet Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Jitendra Pal Singh – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. - 44 of 2021, FIRST APPEAL No. - 43 of 2021
Decided On : 31-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Alok Verma,Prabh Jot Kaur, Ramesh Chandra Pathak
For the Respondent: Narendra Kumar Kashyap, Ratnoja @ Ratna Singh, Sunita

IMPORTANT POINT
Unilateral withdrawal from a mutual consent divorce agreement can constitute cruelty, and prolonged separation may indicate an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, justifying the grant of divorce.

Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND DIVORCE - Section 9, Section 13 - The court discussed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly Section 9 concerning restitution of conjugal rights and Section 13 regarding grounds for divorce, including cruelty and desertion. The court interpreted 'cruelty' to encompass both physical and mental aspects, emphasizing that unilateral withdrawal from mutual consent for divorce could constitute cruelty. The long separation of the parties was also considered indicative of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, influencing the court's decision to grant divorce.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/wife and respondent/husband were married on 20.06.2010 but faced marital discord leading to the wife leaving the matrimonial home on 20.01.2013. The husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, while the wife sought divorce under Section 13, citing cruelty and desertion. The Family Court ruled in favor of the husband, prompting the wife to appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court found that the wife failed to prove allegations of cruelty and desertion, leading to the dismissal of her divorce petition and the granting of the husband's request for restitution of conjugal rights. The court noted the absence of corroborative evidence from the wife regarding her claims.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights? 2. Whether the wife was entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unilateral non-appearance in a mutual consent divorce suit could amount to cruelty. It also recognized that prolonged separation could indicate an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, warranting a divorce despite the Family Court's earlier findings.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the Family Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant/wife was granted a divorce on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Ms. Prabh Jot Kaur, learned Counsel representing the appellant/wife and Ms. Ratna Singh, learned Counsel representing the respondent/ husband.

2. Since these two appeals arise out of a common order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Lucknow based on a common factual matrix, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Both these appeals have been filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 by the appellant/wife, inert alia as follows:

(A) First Appeal No. 44 of 2021 has been filed challenging the order passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Lucknow dated 22.02.2021 by which Regular Suit No. 3300 of 2014 filed by the husband/respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and learned Family Court has directed the wife/Appellant for restitution of conjugal rights with her husband/respondent herein.

(B) First Appeal No. 43 of 2021 has been filed challenging the dismissal of Regular Suit No. 2335 of 2015 filed by the wife/appellant seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. The factual exposition of these two appeals can be summarized as herein under :-

(i) The parties claim to have been in love, culminating into their marriage on 20.06.2010 in Arya Samaj Mandir. Obviously there had been no exchange of dowry etc. and records reveal that parties also got their marriage registered in the office of Registrar, Hindu Marriage, U.P. on 23.06.2010. After marriage, both, the appellant and the respondent, had apprehended some risk, danger and threat, therefore, they filed Writ Petition No. 6298 (M/B) of 2010 before this Court, wherein father of wife/appellant had put in appearance and had stated before the Court that he had no grudge against both of them and their apprehension is only a misconception. Noting this statement of the father of the wife/appellant herein and the fact that both of them were major, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2010 with a direction to the Station House Officer, Alambagh to provide due protection as required to them and their married life would not be interfered with or obstructed to in any manner.

(ii) Apparently, both of them lived as husband and wife at matrimonial house after marriage and the record reveals that no child was born out of the said wedlock.

(iii) The story further unfolds by the allegation of the husband/respondent, wherein according to him, the appellant/wife, after couple of years and due to certain bickering between them at the instance of parent of his wife, left the matrimonial home and went to stay at her parental house (maika) on 20.01.2013. After that he and his family had made frequent efforts to persuade her wife to return to her matrimonial house but all in vain. Ultimately, under the pressure of the police, a compromise was entered between them, according to which, both of them would seek divorce on mutual consent before the competent Court. For this purpose, a suit, bearing No.631 of 2014, under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce on mutual consent was filed before the Family Court, Lucknow, however, as claimed, when the husband realized that he could not live without his wife, then, he, instead of appearing in the said suit for divorce on mutual consent, filed Regular Suit No. 3300 of 2014 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.

(iv) Notice was issued in the aforesaid suit. In response thereof, the wife/appellant herein had put in appearance before the Family Court and had filed written statement denying all the allegations made by her husband/ respondent and as counter version it was said that she had solemnized love marriage with the respondent but after marriage, his behaviour towards her was very bad. Her husband harassed and tortured her physically and mentally. Her husband, while co