Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
MAMTA DAS – Appellant
Versus
PUNEET DAS – Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 160/2022 | CM APPL.43569/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Zishan Alam Siddiqui, Mr. Akash, Ms. Amisha Upadhyay
For the Respondents: Mr. Francis Paul
Desertion requires both factum of separation and animus deserendi. Parties must prove their case, with the burden resting on the party alleging desertion to establish absence of consent and reasonable cause to justify separation.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 10(1)(ix) - Divorce on ground of desertion - Appeal by wife against divorce decree granted by Family Court - Grounds of desertion established by respondent; wife’s allegations of hostile environment and constructive desertion proved insufficient - Conduct of wife demonstrated intention to abandon the marriage. (Paras 1, 24-30, 41-60)
(B) Desertion - Elements - Statutory requirement demands both 'factum of separation' and 'animus deserendi' to be proven for granting divorce - Absence of evidence supporting wife's claims of cruelty undermined her position - Prolonged separation without legitimate justification fulfills the legal definition of desertion. (Paras 2, 38-64)
Facts of the case:
Parties married on 26.12.2007, and began living separately since 02.12.2011. Appellant alleged cruelty by in-laws and attempted suicide due to distress, while residing apart and later moving abroad for work. Respondent filed for divorce on 06.11.2017, citing desertion. (Paras 3-64)
Findings of Court:
District Judge accepted respondent's claim of desertion, concluding that the appellant's conduct exhibited animus deserendi, while dismissing her counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights for lack of merit. (Paras 24-70)
Issues: Whether the appellant engaged in desertion; whether the respondent contributed to the separation; and whether there were justifiable grounds for abandonment of the relationship. (Paras 39-41)
Ratio Decidendi: Court reaffirmed that statutory grounds for desertion necessitate proving both separation and the intention to abandon the marriage; neither party demonstrated fault, yet the cumulative evidence indicated that the appellant exhibited intent to sever ties. (Paras 60-63)
Result: Appeal dismissed; divorce decree upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of marriage and subsequent events (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. employment changes and relocations (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. mediation efforts and communications (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. appellant’s arguments on desertion (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. respondent’s defenses against desertion claims (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. court’s evaluation of evidence regarding desertion (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 7. findings of fact on separation and intention (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 8. conclusions on the animus deserendi (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 9. analysis of key evidence and lack of communication. (Para 62 , 63) |
| 10. final judgment affirming desertion and dismissal of appeal. (Para 67 , 68 , 69) |
2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Family Court allowed the divorce petition filed by the Respondent–Husband and dissolved the marriage of the parties under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act on the ground of desertion, while simultaneously dismissing the Counter-Claim bearing No. 01/20224, instituted by the Appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The parties were married on 26.12.2007 at Free Church, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, in accordance with Christian rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated, but no children were born out of wedlock.
4. After marriage, the Appellant-Wife resided in her matrimonial home with the Respondent-Husband at Christian Colony, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, along with the Respondent’s family members.
5. According to the Appellant, soon after the marriage, she was subjected to hostile treatment by her in-laws. They allegedly ridiculed her, created an atmosphere of discord, and caused disharmony within the household. The Appellant’s mother-in-law is stated to have humiliated her, restricted her from entering the kitchen, and generally fostered an unfriendly environment, which made her life stressful. The Respondent, despite being aware of these circumstances, is alleged to have remained a mute spectator and failed to extend support or protection.
6. In July 2008, as per the Appellant, owing to the persistent ill-treatment of the Respondent’s mother, the parties shifted to a rented accommodation at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, taken on a company lease by the Respondent. They resided there from 07.07.2008 to 11.07.2009.
7. The Appellant contends that despite her repeated requests to start a family, the Respondent, allegedly under the influence of his mother, refused on the ground that having a child would complicate a potential divorce. This refusal continued even after medical advice regarding the Respondent’s condition of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, which made conception more difficult.
8. The Appellant further alleges that the stress and hostility she endured drove her to extreme distress, culminating in a suicide attempt on 09.02.2009, when she consumed a bottle of Dettol. However, she did not lodge any formal complaint or seek legal recourse regarding the incident.
9. By July 2009, the Vasant Kunj accommodation was vacated. While the Respondent returned to his parental home, the Appellant claims that she was constrained to take shelter at her relatives’ residence, as the Respondent refused to take her back to the matrimonial home.
10. On 15.07.2009, the Appellant travelled to the USA for a professional assignment. She returned to India after a few months.
11. Upon her return, the Appellant asserts that the Respondent declined to take her back to the matrimonial home and instead asked her to make independent arrangements for accommodation. She further states that she declined a subsequent overseas opportunity in March 2010 in an effort to stabilize the marital relationship. Eventually, through the intervention of family members, a compromise was reached, and the parties resumed cohabitation at the matrimonial home in Karol Bagh, Delhi, on 25.04.2010.
12. In July 2011, the Respondent
