MAT. APP. (F.C) 135/2016 Page 1 of 68

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on : 12^th December 2023

+

MAT. APP. (F.C) 135/2016 & CM APPL. 8195/2018

OMAR ABDULLAH

.... Appellant

versus

PAYAL ABDULLAH

.... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant:

Ms. Malavika Rajkotia with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms.

Trisha Gupta, Ms. Ekta Sharma, Ms. Purva Dua, Mr. Sajal

Arora, Mr. Prateek Avasthi and Mr. Mayank Grover,

Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Shreya Singhal, Mr. Sarthak

Bhardwaj, Ms. Anshika Sharma, Ms. Pranaya Sahai and

Ms. Akriti Anand, Advocates.

CORAM: -

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1.

Appellant/Husband impugns judgment and decree dated

30.08.2016 passed by the Family Court, whereby the petition filed by

the appellant seeking divorce under Section 18 of the Foreign

Marriage Act 1969 read with Section 27(1)(B) and (D) of the Special

Marriage Act, 1954 on the grounds of desertion and cruelty has been

dismissed.

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:13.12.2023

12:48:12

Signature Not Verified

MAT. APP. (F.C) 135/2016 Page 2 of 68

2.

Appellant husband, a Muslim got married to Respondent wife, a

Hindu on 01.09.1994 under Civil Law in England. It is an admitted

position that both parties are permanent residents of India and there is

no dispute that the family court at Delhi had the jurisdiction to

adjudicate the petition.

3.

Appellant filed the petition alleging that their marriage has

irretrievably broken down and that parties have been living separately

since 2009, although they had not enjoyed conjugal relations since

2007. As per the Appellant, he has been residing in Srinagar since

2009 and was serving as the Chief Minister of the State of Jammu and

Kashmir and Respondent had chosen to reside in Delhi with their

children.

4.

As per the Appellant Respondent refused to accompany him to

Kashmir in 2002, when he moved there in order to prepare himself for

the elections and this resulted in the Petitioner having to fly to Delhi

on the weekends to meet his children. It is alleged that the Respondent

has alienated the children from the Appellant which is evident from

the SMS exchange between them and the Appellant. He further

alleges that the Respondent had an uncomfortable relationship with

the Appellant’s family, due to which he was forced to distance himself

from his own family to keep the peace in his marriage. It is contended

that Respondent would never attend holidays with the Appellant’s

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:13.12.2023

12:48:12

Signature Not Verified

MAT. APP. (F.C) 135/2016 Page 3 of 68

family, nor would she allow the children to do so.

5.

As per the Appellant the fact that Respondent has been

irrationally refusing any and all discussion for an amicable

separation/divorce, it also amounts to cruelty. It is alleged that

appellant had made sincere efforts to settle the disputes, however the

Respondent has refused any dialogue.

6.

Per contra, Respondent contends that the petition does not

disclose any cruelty and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed

for want of cause of action. The allegation of parties not having any

conjugal relations since 2007 is denied, it is submitted that the parties

were residing together until the filing of the petition in January 2013.

It is contended that parties had not been living separately for over two

years prior