Long periods of continuous separation between spouses can amount to cruelty and provide grounds for divorce.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 97/2019

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on:

02.12.2021

%

Judgment delivered on: 03.01.2022

+

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 97/2019

VANDANA SINGH

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Adv. with

appellant in-person.

versus

SATISH KUMAR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Amit Bhatnagar & Ms. Namrata

Ranga, Advs. with respondent in

person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/wife against the

Respondent/Husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to

assail the judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Family Court, Dwarka,

New Delhi, whereby the petition filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, by the appellant/wife for grant of divorce from the

respondent/husband on the grounds of cruelty, was dismissed.

2.

Briefly stated the facts are that the marriage of the parties was

solemnized on 06.05.2010 at Arya Samaj Vivah Mandir Trust (Regd) at

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000025

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 97/2019

Page 2 of 10

Manvi Kalan, Near Tehsil Khekra, Bhagpat, UP according to Hindu Rites

and Ceremonies. The marriage was consummated but no child was born out

of their wedlock.

3.

It was the case of the Appellant that at the time of the marriage, she

was pursuing B.Tech. from Lucknow University, and the respondent used to

visit India from Canada to meet his family. It was during these visits that the

respondent started following her, and expressed his love for her. Thereafter,

the Appellant and Respondent became friends and started communicating

with each other through telephonic calls and messages. During this time, the

Respondent informed the Appellant that he was pursuing MBA from

Canada, and gave his date of birth as 27.01.1983. At the time of their

marriage the Appellant came to know that the actual date of birth of the

respondent was 27.01.1977. However, at that time, she could not back out

from the marriage out of fear.

4.

The Appellant further averred that the Respondent had initially,

cleverly, convinced her not to inform either of their parents about their

marriage. After the marriage ceremony, the couple went to Lucknow, and

then to Agra for their honeymoon, and thereafter both parties returned to

their respective homes. Thereafter, the Respondent left for Canada for his

job, taking along with him all marriage documents and photographs.

5.

The Respondent returned to India, after one and a half years of the

marriage, on 19.10.2011. Both the Appellant and the Respondent stayed in

Mumbai for two days along with the respondent’s sister.

6.

The next time the Respondent returned to India was from 13.10.2012

to 20.11.2012. This time the parties went to Nainital on vacation for two

days. The next visit of the Respondent to India was on 03.02.2014, when the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000025

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 97/2019

Page 3 of 10

parties stayed together in Delhi for one day, after which the Respondent

again went back to Canada. The Appellant averred that on all these

occasions, the Respondent was physically, mentally and sexually abusive

towards her. Owing to the above conduct of the Respondent, the Appellant

finally instituted the divorce petition on 28.04.2014.

7.

The Respondent in his written statement denied all allegations and

submitted that the Appellant was well aware of his age before their marriage,

and that their marriage was a happy one. He further submitted that he

travelled to India in 2008, when the parties stayed together for forty-five

days. Thereafter, the Appellant visited in the year 2009 and then in 2010 for

about two months each, when the parties spent most of their time together.

8.

The respondent further averred that it was due to the press