MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2021

Page 1 of 5

$~9.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Date of Decision: 24.01.2022

%

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2021

RITA KHANEJA

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Arati Mahajan Shedha & Ms.Malvi

Balyan, Advocates.

versus

RAJESH KHANEJA

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Anil K. Gujral, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)

1.

The respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) against the appellant before the Learned

Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi. The

Family Court, after completion of the trial, inter alia, has held that the appellant

herein had inflicted cruelty upon the respondent/petitioner after solemnisation of

marriage and allowed the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA and

granted the decree of divorce against the appellant.

2.

Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 19 of

the Family Courts Act challenging the impugned Judgement dated 11.11.2019.

3.

A perusal of the record reveals that the marriage of the parties was

solemnized on 30.09.1998, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Lajpat

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001054

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2021

Page 2 of 5

Nagar, New Delhi. The marriage was consummated; however, no child was born

out of the wedlock. They have been living separately since April, 1999, i.e for

about 23 years now, and have been in litigation since mid of 2000, while the

petition for divorce was filed in 2005.

4.

The Judicial view in context of long-time separation of parties, has been well

settled with time. In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, while

enumerating instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in cases of

mental cruelty, the Supreme Court has indicated an illustrative list of instances.

The part relevant for this discussion reads as follows:

“101. …

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the

parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the

wronged party cannot reasonably be asked toput up with such

conduct and continue to live with other party.

…

(xiv)Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it

may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.

The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By

refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the

sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the

feelings and emotions of the parties .In such like situations, it may

lead to mental cruelty.”(emphasis supplied)

5.

Recently in the case of Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal, 2021 SCC OnLine

SC 702, the Supreme Court held that the court can dissolve a marriage when there

is actually no chance of the marriage surviving, and it is broken beyond repair. The

Court Relied on Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, wherein it held

as follows:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001054

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2021

Page 3 of 5

“85. Undoubtedly, it is the obligation of the court, and all concerned

that the marriage status should, as far as possible, as long as

possible and whenever possible, be maintained, but when the

marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing is gained by trying to

keep the parties tied forever to a marriage which in fact has ceased

to exist. ...”

6.

In Laxmi v. Kanhaiya Lal, MAT.PP.(F.C.) 5/2020 decided by this Court on

07.10.2021, where the parties lived together only for a period of 8 to 9 months,

while they had been living separately for the last 15-16 years, this court has held as

follows:

“23. When the marriage sours, the vows that the couple takes at the

time of marriage are a casualty. We take it that neither of the parties