Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, J
SMT. PARVEEN ALIAS PINKU – Appellant
Versus
SH. RAJESH – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 417 of 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS. DEVYANI SHARMA
For the Respondents: MR. BHUPINDER GUPTA, MR. VEDHANT RANTA
Allegations of cruelty in divorce proceedings must be substantiated; mere accusations without proof cannot warrant dissolution of marriage.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 13, 23 & 24 - Dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty - Court held that allegations against husband regarding unchastity must be substantiated, otherwise cannot be grounds for divorce. The court ruled that husband requires to raise grievance about such allegations prior to petitioning for divorce. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 15)
(B) Maintenance pendente lite - Applicant entitled to maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month as per Section 24 of the Act, after considering income status of both parties and dependent children. (Paras 31, 33)
Facts of the case:
The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized under Hindu rites; husband filed for divorce citing cruelty; the wife countered with allegations of dowry and attempted suicide.
Findings of Court:
The appeal allowed; prior decree of divorce set aside; husband’s petition for divorce dismissed.
Issues: The court addressed allegations of cruelty, condonation, and maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The learned trial court's decision was inconsistent regarding condonation; allegations must be proved to constitute cruelty, necessitating a grievance from the aggrieved party.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. husband's allegations of cruelty due to wife's actions. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner must prove allegations for divorce. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. maintenance granted based on financial status and dependency. (Para 18 , 19 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
Appellant assails judgment and decree dated 18th October, 2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, in H.M.A. Petition No. 17- S/3 of 2005/04, whereby the petition of respondent/ husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty has been allowed.
2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred as wife and husband respectively for clarity.
3. Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short “the Act”) on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
…3…
Learned trial Court allowed the petition on the ground of cruelty. The issue with respect to desertion was decided against the husband. Wife has assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 8/9 September, 2001 at Dakharantu, Tehsil Jubal, District Shimla, H.P. Parties were Hindus by religion and hence their marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. A baby was born to wife on 11.11.2002 out the wedlock. Husband alleged that his mother went to the house of father of wife, where the wife was staying at the time of birth of baby, but the father of the wife did not allow the mother of husband to see her daughter-in-law and newly born baby. The mother of husband was insulted and she had to come back without seeing the newly born child. Thereafter, husband went to see his wife at Solan and enquired as to why his mother was insulted and humiliated, but the …4…husband was also treated in the same manner. Two respectable persons were sent to call the wife to her matrimonial home, but wife refused the offer. Husband again went to the wife, this time he was accompanied by his relatives and on their persuasion, the wife along with her mother and father came to the house of husband. On the very next day, father of wife collected all the belongings of wife and went away. While leaving the place, he instructed the husband to send the wife on 19.12.2002 as there was a “poojan” ( religious ceremony) to be solemnized. Accordingly, husband and wife along with newly born baby visited Solan to join “pooja” ceremony. On the next day of “pooja” ceremony, husband requested the wife to accompany him to matrimonial home, but he faced hostility at the hands of the wife and her parents. False allegations of dowry demand were levelled against him as well as his parents. Husband termed these allegations as frivolous and ridiculous. The parents of the wife also levelled …5… allegations that the wife tried to commit suicide by taking poison. In order to save the marriage of parties, parents of husband again sent some respectable persons, but to no avail.
5. Husband thereafter filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal rights before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal. Wife prayed for transfer of said petition and accordingly the same was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla. Petition under Section 9 of the Act was stated to be pending at the time of filing of petition for dissolution of marriage.
6. In response, wife submitted her reply and denied the allegations as levelled against her and her parents in the petition. It was submitted that in petition under Section 9 of the Act, wife filed her reply and also an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite, but the petition was withdrawn by husband. As a counter allegation, it was …6…submitted that after one month of marriage wife was pressed hard by husband and his family members to arrange marriage of the sister of husband with her (wife's) brother. She tried to arran
