Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024

Posted on September 16, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore held as follows,

From Para 16,

16. It has also been held in Samar Ghosh (supra) where on facts there has been irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the party opposing the divorce and not letting go the other party free of the matrimonial bond, would be causing mental cruelty to the other party. This makes considerable sense in the Indian context where to reach finality by exhausting the remedy of appeals may take several years. In such situation the party opposing the grant of divorce may, in some cases, be doing so only out of spite, either to harass the other party or prevent it from remarrying or out of sheer cussedness. That may indeed also confirm the allegation that such party had been causing mental cruelty, and was now intent on causing further mental cruelty by opposing the divorce.

From Para 19,

19. Respondent by filing certified copy of impugned judgment and decree in Criminal Case No.2015/2017 under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has proved that criminal case was lodged at the behest of appellant / wife in which ultimately appellant, his sister and parents were acquitted by the parties. Learned Court below relying upon the judgment in the case of Vandana Gupta Vs. Ramesh Gupta reported in 2009 (2) MPLJ 214, Madhuri Aaswani Vs. Arjundas Aaswani reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 550 and Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Agrawal reported in AIR 2012 SC 2586 concluded that prosecution of husband and her relatives on the false allegation of demand of dowry comesunder mental cruelty. The findings recorded by the learned Court below are impregnable and infallible.

From Para 21,

21. Learned Court below has recorded the finding that termination of pregnancy without consent of husband also comes under the purview of cruelty. With regard to the aforesaid finding, this Court is of the view that termination of pregnancy may come under the term ‘cruelty’ depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Nikhil Wadhawan Vs Priti Wadhawan on 05 Feb 2024

Posted on August 30, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 37 and 38,

37. From the evidence of the parties, it is evident that there was an unwarranted interference of the parents and the family members of the respondent in the matrimonial life of the appellant, as has been asserted by him. Such parental interference reached an extent of causing immense harassment to the appellant, who was even made to face multiple complaints before the different agencies. The parties are residing separately since 2001 i.e. for about 13 years, during which the appellant has been deprived of his conjugal relationship for no fault of his. It needs no reiteration that the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal relationships. For a spouse to be deprived of his wife’s company proves that the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of conjugal relationships is an act of extreme cruelty. Such long separation with no effort by the wife to resume matrimonial relationship, is an act of cruelty as is held in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511.
38. We thus, conclude that the evidence on record proved that there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, Police reports and criminal trial can only be termed as mental cruelty. The marital discord between the parties has pinnacled to complete loss of faith, trust, understanding, love and affection between the parties. This dead relationship has become infested with acrimony, irreconcilable differences and protracted litigations; any insistence to continue this relationship would only be perpetuating further cruelty upon both the parties.

Nikhil Wadhawan Vs Priti Wadhawan on 05 Feb 2024

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 21 Jun 2024

Posted on June 30, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Telangana High Court granted divorce to husband, by holding that,

From Para 16,

16. The obliteration of marital ties is entirely for the persons in the marriage and upon them to assess and resolve in the best way they think fit. The Court has a limited role in the whole affair and should not act as an executioner (in the sense of a hangman) or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband, particularly where the meeting of minds between them has irrevocably ended. It is certainly not the Court’s work to ferret out faultlines in the evidence in negation of cruelty in an altruistic zeal for preserving the marriage. This kind of exercise is unwarranted and pointless.

From Paras 17 and 18,

17. It is relevant to state that the Trial Court also held that the brief “reunion” of the parties in May, 2015 precluded the appellant from re-agitating events prior to the respondent coming to live with the appellant as it indicated forgiveness on the part of the appellant. We are unable to agree with the reasoning and the presumption.
18. Condonation and forgiveness means restoration of the offending spouse to the same position as he/she was before the offence was committed. The evidence must also point to this direction: Dr.N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane13. Forgiveness would be a misnomer in a case where the wife stays with the husband for 2 months and then leaves the matrimonial home and lodges an F.I.R. against the husband and his family members for offences punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and the Dowry Prohibition Act: Malathi Ravi, M.D v. B.V. Ravi, M.D.14. The Supreme Court in that case held that the husband had been treated with mental cruelty and affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the High Court.

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 21 Jun 2024

Trial Court Order dismissing the Divorce petition:

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 02 Nov 2021

Pramod Vs Umesh at Poonam on 01 Mar 2024

Posted on March 28, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

Pramod Vs Umesh at Poonam on 01 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce judgements is here.

Gaurav Nighawan Vs Shweta on 05 Jan 2024

Posted on March 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 19 and 20,

19. With regard to Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the pertinent observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bipin Chandra Jaisinghbhai Shah Vs. Prabhavati 1956 SCC OnLine SC 15 are as under:-
“Thus the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements which differentiates desertion from wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned : (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid.”
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah(Supra) has further observed that once it is found that one of the spouses has been in desertion, the presumption is that the desertion has continued and that is not necessary for the deserted spouse actually to take steps to bring the deserting spouse back to the matrimonial home.

Finally in Paras 23 and 24,

23. Applying the provisions of Section 13(ib) of the Act, we find that merely within two months of marriage between the parties, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home. Neither she made any complaint against the appellant nor did she file petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. No doubt, even appellant has not been able to show before the learned Family Court and even in this Court that he had made any concrete efforts to bring back his wife to the matrimonial home. However, when he approached the court seeking divorce, despite service through publication, the respondent did not appear before the learned Family Court to contest the allegations made by the appellant. The respondent has even abstained herself from appearing before this Court despite service through the SHO concerned. Relevantly, since the marriage in the year 2015 till the year 2023, the respondent has not made any effort to join company of appellant-husband. There is no doubt that respondent has quietly chosen to stay apart from appellant and broken the bond of marriage, though not legally but otherwise.
24. In the light of afore-noted facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent has wilfully deserted the appellant and so, appellant is entitled to get benefit of provision of Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage between the parties is thus, dissolved and a decree of divorce is granted. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

Gaurav Nighawan Vs Shweta on 05 Jan 2024

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Payal Sethi Vs Rohit Sethi on 09 Jan 2024

Posted on January 27, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held that, repeated threats to commit suicide and the attempt to commit suicide was held to be an action amounting to cruelty, based on Supreme Court decisions.

From Pars 25-31,

25. The repeated threats to commit suicide and the attempt to commit suicide was held to be an action amounting to cruelty by the Supreme court in the case of Pankaj Mahajan Vs. Dimple, (2011) 12 SCC 1. It was further observed that cruelty postulates a treatment of a spouse with such cruelty that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. Similarly in Narendra Vs. K. Meena (2016) 9 SCC 455, it was observed that in case the wife succeeds in committing suicide, one can only imagine how the poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life. Such threat of attempting suicide amounts to cruelty.
26. In the present case as well, the conduct of the appellant is clearly is an act of cruelty towards the respondent/husband.
27. We may note further that on leaving the matrimonial home on 15.12.2009, the appellant lodged a complaint with Crime against Women Cell, which became the basis of registration of FIR No. 508/2012 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. The respondent was once again driven to take anticipatory bail. The appellant even made a claim of Rs.5 lakhs to settle all the disputes, but the respondent was not in a position to offer more than Rs.3 lakhs because of which the matter could not be settled.
28. Even thereafter another case under the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act was filed in the year 2018 despite the separation of more than nine years. The appellant, no doubt has a legal right to take recourse for the wrong that may have been committed but making unsubstantiated allegations of having been subjected to dowry demands or acts of cruelty by the respondent or his family members, and getting criminal trials initiated against the respondent are clearly acts of cruelty.
29. In the case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita (2013) 5 SCC 226, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that filing of false complaints against the husband and his family members constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was further observed that filing appeals questioning the acquittal of the husband indicates the relentless attempts of the wife to somehow ensure that the husband and his family are put in jail. Such acts, without a doubt, amount to cruelty.
30. The Supreme Court in Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj (2020) 3 SCC 786, observed that an unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegations made against the husband and his family members exposed them to criminal litigation. Ultimately, if it is found that such allegations were unwarranted and without basis, the husband can allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him and claim a divorce on such a ground.
31. We note that during the two years of their matrimonial life, the parties barely resided together for ten months in all and even during that time there were various acts of the cruelty of being subjected to false complaints and civil as well as criminal litigation, committed by the appellant towards the respondent. We therefore, conclude that the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly held that the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and granted divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the HMA.

Payal Sethi Vs Rohit Sethi on 09 Jan 2024

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Neeta Amar Vs Vipul Amar on 20 Dec 2023

Posted on December 25, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 50,

50. Hence, it is no more res integra that such reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which has the impact of publically tarnishing the image of the other spouse, is nothing but acts of extreme cruelty. In the present case as well, the appellant always had doubts on the fidelity of her husband which necessarily led to harassment resulting in mental cruelty to the respondent/husband. The strongest pillars on which any marriage stands is trust, faith and respect, and thus, no person can reasonably be expected to put with such disrespectful conduct of their “significant other” who lacks faith in her partner. Any spouse not only expects their partner to respect them but also envisions that in times of need, the spouse would act as a shield to protect their image and reputation. Unfortunately, here is a case where the husband himself is being publically harassed, humiliated and verbally-attacked by his wife, who had gone to the extent of levelling allegation of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staff/guests. She even took to harassing the woman workers of his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womanizer in the office. This behaviour is but an act of extreme cruelty to the respondent/husband.

From Paras 56 and 57,

56. The other act of cruelty relied upon by the respondent was that the appellant/wife used to allege that the respondent/husband was impotent. She compelled him to go for Doppler‟s Impotency Test in which he was found to be fit. Such allegations caused mental cruelty to the respondent.
57. This version has been explained by the appellant who asserted that the respondent/husband suffered losses in his business on account of change of Government policies in regard to the business with European countries because of which he went into depression and took to smoking and drinking. She, out of concern for his health, insisted on his visiting the Doctor. She denied that she got the Impotency Test conducted of the respondent/ husband. The appellant while fanning ignorance about the test being conducted, herself gave the explanation that the respondent had visited the Doctor to address his problem of not being able to perform sexually when under intoxication and irritated and frustrated. The admissions of the appellant establish that the respondent was made to undergo the Impotency Test in which he was found to be fit. Clearly, such averments and allegations about the manhood of a person would not only be depressive but also mentally traumatic for any person to accept.

From Para 58,

58. The appellant had made serious allegations of respondent being abusive, quarrelsome and erratic in his behaviour. However, in her cross-examination she admitted that the respondent used to provide everything to her and the child and that he never made any dowry demands. The allegations of dowry demands by the respondent and his family members clearly get demolished by her own admissions. Learned Addl. Principal Judge has rightly concluded that levelling of such allegations of dowry demands would certainly cause mental cruelty to the respondent and his family members.

From Para 60,

60. In the case of Prabin Gopal v. Meghna, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2193 in a similar situation, the Kerala High Court observed that the mother had intentionally distanced the child from the father and had deprived the child from the parental love and affection. It was a case of parental alienation where the child, who was in the custody of one parent, had been psychologically manipulated against the estranged parent. It was a strategy whereby one parent intentionally displayed to the child unjustified negativity aimed at the other parent, with the intent to damage the relationship between the child and the estranged parent and to turn the child emotionally against the parent. It was further observed that the child has a right to love and affection of both the parents and likewise, the parents also have a right to receive love and affection of the child. Any act of any parent calculated to deny such affection to the other parent, amounts to alienating the child which amounts to mental cruelty. Since the child was in the custody of the mother, it was held that the mother had breached her duty which she owed as a custodian parent to instil love, affection and feelings in the child for the father. Nothing more can be more painful than experiencing one’s own flesh and blood i.e., the child, rejecting him or her. Such wilful alienation of the child by a parent amounts to mental cruelty to the other parent.

Neeta Amar Vs Vipul Amar on 20 Dec 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 2023

Posted on October 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held that Family Courts cannot grant divorce on ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage.

From Para 4,

4. The Respondent also alleged that from the very first day of marriage, Appellant created scenes at night hours and most of the times did not allow him to enjoy his conjugal rights. She refused him to have access to her and inflicted cruelty upon him. He further alleged that he was allowed by the Appellant only 30-35 times (approximately) to enjoy conjugal relations since their marriage.

From Para 7 and 8,

7. In respect of the ground of cruelty, the Family Court has held that “there was no normal and healthy sexual relationships between (Respondent) and his wife (Appellant) and same has resulted in striking at the very foundation of their marriage. It has been well settled that normal and healthy sexual Relationships between both spouse is one of the basic ingredients for happy and harmonious marriage as the marriage without sex is an anathema. Sex is foundation of marriage and without a vigorous and harmonious sexual activity it would be impossible for any marriage to continue.”
8. The Family Court after holding that there was denial of conjugal relations, noticed that parties had been living separately for more than 11 years and held that the marriage had broken down beyond repair and thus held that the Respondent had successfully established cruelty and thus granted a decree of divorce against the Appellant.

From Para 17,

17. Said ground is clearly not available to the Respondent and the Family Court has erred in returning a finding that there is denial of conjugal relationship by the Appellant. The allegations of the Respondent of denial of conjugal relationship are vague and without any specifics. He has alleged that he was allowed by the Appellant only 30-35 times (approximately) to enjoy conjugal relations since their marriage. This clearly shows that there was never any complete denial.

From Para 25,

25. In terms of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shilpa Sailesh (supra), the power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to both the parties. Such a power is not vested in the High Courts leave alone the Family Courts.
26. In the instant case, the Family Court has merely considered the fact that the parties have lived separately for 11 years and granted divorce on the ground of breakdown of marriage. Such an exercise of powers is not conferred on the Family Court. Family Courts have to restrict their considerations to the parameters of the provision of grant of divorce strictly in accordance with the Act. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground in the Act.
27. Even the Supreme Court while considering exercise of discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India takes into account several factors and longevity of period is only one of them. Reference may be had to Para 41 of Shilpa Sailesh (supra) extracted hereinabove. Supreme Court has placed a word of caution that “grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by this Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties. It is obvious that this Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established.”
28. In the present case, the Family Court has erred in travelling beyond the scope of its powers to grant divorce.

Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 2023

Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023

Posted on September 24, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court granted divorce to a couple who are separated for over 17 years…

From Para 17,

17. The divorce has been sought on the ground of cruelty. While “physical cruelty” is visible and easy to comprehend and determine, the more challenging aspect is “mental agony” which has been recognized as part of “cruelty” which once established, is a valid ground of divorce. The contours of “mental cruelty” were defined in case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1956 can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the party.What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case.

From Paras 22 and 23,

22. During the trial, the allegations had not been established as held by the Order of Ld. Mahila Court, South District and amounts to a clear and categorical character assassination of the appellant as well as his family members.
23. It is not under challenge that the criminal proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the parties. A Police Station is not the best of places for anyone to visit. It is a source of mental harassment and trauma each time he was required to visit the Police Station, like the “Damocles Sword” hanging over his head, not knowing when a case would be registered against him and he would be arrested. The respondent had done everything to get the appellant and his family entrapped in the criminal case. Such conduct of making false allegations and constant threat of being summoned to Police Station are the acts which severely impact the mental balance and all the acts of cruelty.

From Para 27,

27. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the “Fault theory”, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented with concrete instances of human behaviour as they bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of the fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period continuous separation, it may be fairly surmised 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. The Family Court ought to have visualised that preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be a greater source of misery for the parties. The Family Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach. In the instant case, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life.

Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023

Citations: [2023 SCC ONLINE DEL 5122]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186009176/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64e4d541d2752322a69ddb3d

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/constant-threat-of-arrest-and-wifes-false-allegations-has-become-source-of-mental-cruelty-delhi-hc-grants-divorce-to-aggrieved-husband-1491232

Index of Divorce Judgments here.

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023

Posted on September 5, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 12,

12. Marriages under old Hindu Law are considered as a sacrament and did not recognize the concept of divorce. Once this union of marriage was established, the ties were for the entire life of the spouses which could not be severed under any circumstances. Complete shift of paradigm from the social ethos happened with the enactment of the Act, 1955 which not only introduced the concept of ‘monogamy’ but also defined certain grounds on which alone divorce could be granted. Despite this phenomenal change in the social ethos, the Act, 1955 recognises the ground of divorce only on “Fault Theory”. Unless the opposite party was shown to be at fault, whether it was for ‘Adultery’, ‘Cruelty’, ‘Desertion’ or other grounds as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no divorce can be granted. With the passage of time, experience has shown that many a times, the marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed. However, since only Fault Theory prevails, these parties end up warring with each other for years to come only because they have no way of exiting this relationship. While many debates have been held to introduce “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground, it has not met the approval and consent of the legislation. We are bound by limits as defined under the Act, 1955 and unless the fault of the other spouse is shown, the parties are left to suffer acrimonious relationship with no way to exit. In this backdrop, the facts of the present case may be considered.

From Para 30,

30. We conclude that in the present case the parties are living separately for 15 years now; there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, police reports and criminal trial has become a source of mental cruelty and any insistence either to continue this relationship or modifying the Family Court’s order would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties. Living together in a marriage is not an irreversible act. But marriage is a tie between two parties and if this tie is not working under any circumstances, we see no purpose in postponing the inevitability of the situation.

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023

Citations: [2023 DHC 6384-DB]

Other Sources:

Index of Divorce judgments here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: HM Act 13 – Divorce Granted to Husband

Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024

Nikhil Wadhawan Vs Priti Wadhawan on 05 Feb 2024

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 21 Jun 2024

Pramod Vs Umesh at Poonam on 01 Mar 2024

Gaurav Nighawan Vs Shweta on 05 Jan 2024

Payal Sethi Vs Rohit Sethi on 09 Jan 2024

Neeta Amar Vs Vipul Amar on 20 Dec 2023

Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 2023

Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023