MAT.APP.(F.C.) 178/2016 Page 1 of 21

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on:_21^st August, 2023

%

Pronounced on: 20^th December, 2023

+

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 178/2016 & CM APPL.9333/2017

NEETA AMAR

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Navin Sharma, Advocate with

appellant in person

versus

VIPUL AMAR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Jai Bansal & Mr. Abhishek

Verma, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

Any successful marriage is built on mutual respect and faith. If either is

compromised beyond a level, the end of the relationship is inevitable as

no relationship can stand on half-truth, half-lies, half-respect and half-

faith.

1.

An Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been

preferred on behalf of the appellant/wife against the Judgment dated

31.08.2016 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis

Hazari, Delhi vide which divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty,

in the petition filed by the respondent/husband under 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as “HMA”).

2.

Briefly stated, the parties got married on 28.02.2000 and one son,

Rudraksha,

was born from their wedlock on 27.04.2004. The

respondent/husband has asserted that during the pre-nuptial negotiations it

Digitally Signed

By:VIKAS ARORA

Signing Date:22.12.2023

20:41:07

Signature Not Verified

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 178/2016 Page 2 of 21

was falsely projected that the appellant/wife is an MBA. However, after the

marriage, he came across the educational documents of the appellant and

could not find any MBA Certificate. He also found that most of the

certificates were in different names and on inquiry from the appellant she

stated that her father used to write her name differently in the educational

records anything to make the so called DATA look “colorful”. She further

admitted that she was not an MBA graduate but was advised to claim so in

her matrimonial home.

3.

The respondent asserted that he had an excellent schooling and had

more than a “literate tag” and the intellectual level of both the parties could

not match since the very inception. The appellant being aware of her

handicap, joined English Speaking Schools and similar courses for

improvement of her speaking skills in the English language. She also joined

Priya Warrick Finishing School in the month of May, 2001. The respondent

claimed that he spent lot of money in getting her admitted to various English

Speaking Schools and Finishing Schools, but to his shock and surprise the

appellant did not attend any of these programs for more than 2-3 days,

resulting in wasteful expenditure and financial strain.

4.

The respondent had further claimed that the father of the appellant

used to interfere in his professional work and often insisted that she should

come to meet the father or his elder brother. He also insisted that the

respondent/husband should have a personal account to meet the situation in

bad time and for that he may even steal the money from the joint business

and save it in a separate account. The respondent asserted that all his

requests to the appellant/wife to refrain from creating problem for the family

at the instigation of her parents, did not yield any result. When the

Digitally Signed

By:VIKAS ARORA

Signing Date:22.12.2023

20:41:07

Signature Not Verified

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 178/2016 Page 3 of 21

respondent displayed his disinclination to follow his advice, he was

pressurized by the appellant to