MAT.APP. (F.C.) No. 116/2021

Page 1 of 22

$~2

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 22.12.2021

%

Judgment delivered on: 02.05.2022

+

MAT.APP. (F.C.) No. 116/2021

SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA

..... Appellant

Through:

Md. Azam Ansari, Advocate with

Mr. Ashfaque Ansari, Advs.

Versus

PREETI SHARMA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Gaurav Goswami with Mr. Tarun

Goomber and Mr. Pankaj Mendiratta,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, ACJ.

1.

The appellant/husband preferred this appeal under Section 19 of

Family Courts Act, 1984 to quash and set aside the judgment dated

10.08.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South District,

Saket Courts, Delhi in HMA No. 388 of 2011 titled as Smt. Preeti Sharma

Vs Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma. The Family Court granted divorce by the

impugned judgment in favour of the respondent/wife under Section 13(1)(ia)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as HMA).

2.

The necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the

marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001663

MAT.APP. (F.C.) No. 116/2021

Page 2 of 22

22.05.1997 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at respondent’s father’s

house in New Delhi. The parties cohabited as husband and wife, and two

daughters were born out of the wedlock.

3.

Soon after the marriage, the relationship between the couple turned

sour. Marital differences cropped up between the parties and the divorce

petition was preferred by the respondent on grounds of continuous acts of

cruelty inflicted by the appellant upon the respondent. The Family Court

allowed the divorce petition against the appellant by the impugned

judgment.

4.

The appellant in the present appeal alleges that the Family Court has

erred in striking out the defence of the appellant, and not allowing the

appellant to lead his defence evidence, and granted divorce by relying on the

allegations of the respondent, which are contrary to submissions on record.

5.

The issues which require adjudication in this case are as follows:

(i)

Whether the Family Court was right in striking off the defence of the

appellant?

(ii)

Whether the respondent/wife was able to prove the charge of cruelty

with cogent evidence against the appellant/husband before the Family

Court?

6.

The appellant and the respondent appeared before us, and we

interacted with them, with a view to explore the possibility of reconciliation.

The parties agreed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and

Conciliation Centre to settle their dispute with regard to the alimony and

maintenance for both the daughters. However, the parties could not reach to

a settlement, and the matter was referred back to the court. Accordingly, we

heard the submissions of the parties on merits and reserved judgment.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001663

MAT.APP. (F.C.) No. 116/2021

Page 3 of 22

7.

After the relations between the parties soured, the respondent wife

initiated a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman against

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act), which is

pending adjudication before learned MM, Saket Courts, South District,

Delhi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that due to

societal pressure, it took so long for the respondent to take the first step and

file the said case. In the aforesaid case, vide order dated 15.04.2010, the

learned MM granted interim relief to the respondent and directed the

appellant to leave the shared household and refrain from visiting the school

of the children. Hence, on 18.04.2010, the appellant left the house of the

petitioner/respondent and till date they have been living separately. The

submission of the respondent is tha