IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SHEEL NAGU, VINAY SARAF, JJ.
KARANDEEP SINGH CHAWLA – Petitioner
Versus
GURSHISH KARANDEEP CHAWLA – Respondent
F.A. No. 712 of 2020
Decided On : 01-03-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the divorce petition (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. accusations of cruelty from both parties (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. family court's dismissal of husband's petition (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. assessment of credibility of complaints and arguments (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. legal definitions of cruelty and desertion (Para 11) |
| 6. proving desertion and its implications (Para 12 , 14) |
| 7. conclusion of mental cruelty leading to divorce (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. final ruling on decree of divorce (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
VINAY SARAF, J.
1. Appellant/husband seeking decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion had preferred petition under section 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (in short ‘H.M. Act’) on 29-8-2018 before VIth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, District Thane (Maharashtra), which was transferred by Supreme Court vide order dated 13-9-2019 passed in T.C. (Civil) No. 813/2019 to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur and registered as Case No. 1127/2019. After trial, Family Court dismissed petition by impugned judgment and decree dated 13-10-2020, which are assailed by appellant/husband in present appeal under section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1985 read with section 28 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955.
2. Marriage between parties was solemnized on 9-2-2014 according to Sikh Rights and Rituals at Ulhasnagar, District Thane (Maharashtra). They were blessed with a baby girl on 4-12-2014. It is admitted in present matter that they are living separately since 8-7-2014 and lived together for 5 months only.
3. For the sake of convenience, appellant hereinafter is referred to as “husband” and respondent as “wife.”
Husband’s pleading in divorce petition:
4. On 29-8-2018 husband filed petition for divorce on ground of cruelty and desertion and pleaded infra:
4.2 Husband further pleaded that since day one, nature of wife was arrogant and she never paid any heed towards him and did not bother about feelings of her husband. He further pleaded that when wife was pregnant, everyone was happy in the family of husband and Gynecologist advised wife to take rest and avoid travelling despite that she travelled by car many times unnecessarily.
4.3 According to husband parents of wife came to Ulhasnagar and on 8-7-2014 with the permission of parents of husband took wife to her parental home with an assurance that she will return on 23-7-2014, however, she never returned and on phone calls started demanding cash, document, certificate, gold ornaments, clothes etc. Thereafter, wife’s father asked husband to prepare consent affidavit for breakup. Husband and his family members were not able to understand the reason of such a harsh decision, they pleaded with wife’s father but to no avail.
4.4 Husband further pleaded that he tried his level best to save marriage, but wife never supported and she was not ready to live with him and filed false case under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act against husband and his family members in Jabalpur followed by false maintenance case. Husband was forced to file M.P. No. 193/2015 for divorce against wife before Kalyan Court, which was transferred by Supreme Court to Family Court, Jabalpur. In the meantime, wife lodged false report against husband and his family members under section 498-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , which was registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur.
4.5 It is stated by husband that wife also lodged false F.I.R. under section 420 of INDIAN PENAL CODE at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur against rela
Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar vs. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi
G.V.N. Kameswara Rao vs. G. Jabilli
Hulas Rai Baij Nath vs. Firm K.B. Bass and Company
Jitendra Soni vs. Manisha Verma
K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa
Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani vs. Meena
Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja
Roopa Soni vs. Kamalnarayan Soni
Sandhya Malik vs. Col. Satender Malik
The court held that prolonged separation and actions causing mental anguish, including false accusations, constitute sufficient grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The institution of a false criminal complaint by a spouse can amount to mental cruelty upon the other spouse, and can be a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
False accusations and long-term separation can constitute mental cruelty, justifying divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
1. Cruelty as a ground for divorce has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would in general be danger....
The court held that the divorce petition lacked sufficient evidence of mental cruelty and desertion, and that the litigation initiated by the wife for the protection of her rights could not be consid....
The court affirmed that desertion and cruelty, under the Divorce Act, 1869, were established, allowing for divorce as neither party was willing to maintain the marital relationship.
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.