The appellant-husband filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment dated 11-4-2022 issued by the Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Delhi (referred to as ‘the Family Judge’). The judgment dismissed the appellant’s divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (referred to as ‘HMA’).
The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., stated that the respondent-wife caused the appellant to live a life of uncertainty and lack of stability in their marriage, despite spending 20 years together. This mental anguish led to the appellant seeking a divorce based on cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). Moreover, the Court reached the determination that the respondent had abandoned the appellant without any justifiable explanation, thereby granting the appellant the right to seek a divorce based on the grounds of desertion. Introduction In 1992, the appellant, who held the degree of MBBS Doctor, entered into matrimony with the respondent, who also held the degree of MBBS Doctor, in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals. The couple received the blessing of having a daughter in 1994 and a son in 2002.
Wife abandoned the residence and also Children is Cruelty against the Husband.
The appellant alleged that the respondent had a temperamental and unpredictable disposition, subjecting the appellant to a wide range of harsh acts and abandoning him on a minimum of seven occasions, including the most recent and ultimate abandonment on 10-6-2011. The appellant further asserted that subsequent to their marriage, they were informed of the respondent’s intention to enter into a subsequent marriage. The appellant argued that the respondent not only abandoned the marital residence but also abandoned the children, who endured significant suffering due to the respondent’s exceptional conduct. The female child was making preparations for her MBBS Entrance Examination, whereas the male child was in the early stages of his life, at the age of 8. The actions of the respondent can be characterized as the perpetuation of cruelty against the appellant, resulting in detrimental effects on the health, education, and emotional well-being of the children. These youngsters were deeply upset by the respondent’s outrageous conduct.
Husband not responsible for Desertion
The current petition for divorce was filed by the appellant based on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The respondent argued that the appellant always followed the guidance and counsel of his mother, who would unnecessarily intervene in all aspects of their marital life. She said that the mother-in-law confiscated all the gifts she received during her marriage or afterwards, and instead gave them to the appellant’s freshly married sister. Notwithstanding the mother-in-law’s degrading behavior, she endured humiliation and degradation and attempted to establish herself in the marital residence. The Family Judge determined that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations made in the petition. Furthermore, the judge concluded that the respondent did not commit any cruelty and was not responsible for desertion. The appellant’s actions demonstrated a reasonable reason for the respondent to leave the matrimonial home. Consequently, the divorce petition was dismissed. Examination, Legislation, and Determination
The Court asserted that the respondent did not deny each incidence of separation that resulted in separation. However, the Court found that the respondent’s account of each occurrence indicated an unreasonable attitude. Maltreatment The Court noted that the appellant claimed that he was obliged to get a flat only due to the respondent’s difficulties with his mother and his unwillingness to return to the marriage residence, where his mother also resided. Despite the respondent’s denial of any insistence on separate dwelling, the appellant’s arrangement of a separate apartment provides support and veracity to his assertion that the respondent desired separate lodging from his mother. The Court expressed its opinion that while the respondent acknowledged occasionally leaving the matrimonial home due to her unease, she was unable to provide a compelling explanation for the reasons that caused her to feel stifled, scuttled, suffocated/choked, or restricted in her activities.
Termination or denial of cohabitation and conjugal relationships can be classified as an act of extreme cruelty.
The Court additionally expressed the view that it was clearly apparent that the respondent encountered difficulties in adapting to the married home due to the disparities and challenges with the mother-in-law. These factors ultimately led to the respondent’s repeated departure from the marriage home. The Court cited the appellant’s testimony, which indicated that on 10-6-2011, the day when the respondent ultimately left, she conducted her final rituals in the kitchen and also tied a “Rakhi” on the appellant’s hand, expressing that he would now be like a brother to her. She also renounced the marital relationship. The Court made reference to the legal case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 (referred to as the ‘Samar Ghosh Case’). In this case, the Supreme Court made an observation that an extended period of uninterrupted separation can result in the irreversible dissolution of the marital bond, which can be considered as mental cruelty. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the termination or denial of cohabitation and conjugal relationships can be classified as an act of extreme cruelty.
The Court determined that the respondent did not commit any act of cruelty against the appellant. Instead, the evidence presented clearly indicated that the respondent was dissatisfied and unhappy with the behavior of the appellant’s mother. This dissatisfaction led to a lack of space, control, and respect in the matrimonial home, prompting the respondent to leave. The situation involved a clear instance in which the respondent periodically departed from the marriage residence, without any action or culpability on the part of the appellant. The respondent’s periodic withdrawals were acts of mental cruelty inflicted against the appellant, without any valid reason or justification. The Court noted that the Family Judge had thoroughly examined each incident in isolation, but life is not comprised of isolated occurrences.
The respondent shown no inclination to persist in the married relationship
The cumulative impact of daily experiences on subsequent days necessitates a comprehensive examination of the full duration of a married relationship. In the case of Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling that cruelty should not be considered in isolation. Instead, the cumulative impact of facts and circumstances gathered from evidence must be taken into account to determine whether a spouse has experienced mental cruelty as a result of another spouse’s actions. The Court expressed its opinion that the respondent was responsible for exposing the appellant to a state of ambiguity and lack of resolution in their marital relationship, despite their 20-year duration of being together. The appellant’s mental anguish constituted a valid basis for seeking a divorce, based on the grounds of cruelty as outlined in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). The Court made reference to the case of Bipinchandra Jai Singhbai Shah v. Prabhavati, 1956 SCC OnLine SC 15, in which the Supreme Court provided a definition and explanation of the fundamental elements required to establish the basis of desertion. These elements include factum deserdendi, which refers to the element of separation, and animus deserendi, which pertains to the intention to permanently desert.
Furthermore, the act of desertion must have occurred without any justifiable explanation and for a duration exceeding two years prior to submitting the petition. In the current matter, it was observed by the Court that the petition was submitted on November 28, 2014, almost three and a half years subsequent to the respondent’s departure from the matrimonial residence on October 6, 2011. The Court additionally noted that the respondent shown no inclination to persist in the married relationship, as evidenced by her lack of substantial conciliatory efforts to return to the matrimonial house.
The appellant exerted attempts through familial acquaintances and relatives, although acknowledged their lack of success. The Court reached the determination that the respondent had abandoned the appellant without any justifiable explanation, thereby granting the appellant the right to seek a divorce based on the grounds of desertion. It was determined by the Court that the Family Judge made an error in dismissing the divorce petition. Consequently, the Court granted the appeal and overturned the challenged judgment dated 11-4-2022. The divorce was granted based on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, as outlined in Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the HMA….