#matrimonialrelationship

[seemabhatnagar]

Depriving company of each other results in breakdown of marriage

X v. Y

Matrimonial Appeal Family Court 287/2018

Before High Court of Delhi

The Matrimonial Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait J & Hon’ble Madam Justice Neena Bansal Krishna J as long separation peppered with false allegations, Police reports and criminal trial amounted to mental cruelty upon the husband.

Background

The Appeal is filed by the wife against the Judgment dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, granting divorce on the ground of cruelty in a petition filed by the husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of HMA, 1955.

Issue before the High Court

1.      Whether the petitioner (husband in divorce petition) was treated with cruelty by the respondent (wife in the divorce petition), as per averments made in the petition?

2.      Whether the respondent-wife has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without any justifiable reason?

Incidents as narrated by the husband in the Divorce Petition

Incident - 1

1.      The parties got married on 15.04.2009 and they eventually separated on 19.10.2011.

2.      The parties resided together for barely one year and three months and even during this period, the matrimonial life was not blissful.

3.      On the day of karwachauth the wife got annoyed with the husband as the husband had not got her mobile recharged, so she decided not to keep the fast.

4.      The husband has proved that the wife had left the matrimonial home on 17.01.2010 and returned after 47 days i.e. on 04.03.2010, for which there is no explanation forthcoming from the appellant/wife before the High Court.

5.      It is not denied by the appellant/wife that she was away from the matrimonial home for 147 days from 02.04.2010 till 26.08.2010.

Incident -2

7.      On 16.02.2011, wife had breathing problem, she was taken to the Doctor and echo was done culminating into Heart surgery of the wife. Doctors advised her not to consume oily and fried foods but she didn’t listen.

8.      When the husband tried to advise the wife against consuming such food, she on 17.03.2011 retaliated by calling the Police Control Room and the husband and his parents had to spend a day in the police station giving mental agony, pain and humiliation.

Incident -3

9.      Another significant incident deposed by the husband was that when he developed a slip disc in April, 2011, the wife instead of taking care of him removed her vermillion from her forehead, broke her Bangles and wore a white suit, and claimed herself to be a widow.

Observation of High Court in Appeal

1.   Removing vermillion and wearing white suit is an ultimate act of rejection of matrimonial relationship, reflecting her intention of repudiation of the matrimonial relationship

2.   Karwachauth may be an individual choice and if dispassionately considered, may not be termed as an act of cruelty. Having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties, per se would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient to severe a marital tie.

3.   The above stated incidents coupled with the conduct of the wife and in the circumstances as proved by the husband in the present case, establishes non-conforming behavior of the wife with the prevalent rituals in Hindu culture, which symbolizes love and respect for the husband as well as respect towards the matrimonial relationship.

4.   This fortifies the irresistible conclusion that wife had no respect for the husband and their marital bond.

5.   It also reflects that the wife had no intention to continue her marriage with the husband.

6.   Nothing can be a more traumatic experience for a husband than to see his wife act as a widow during his lifetime, that too in a situation where he was seriously injured and expected nothing more than care and compassion from his significant other half.

7.   Undeniably, such conduct of the wife can only be termed as an act of extreme cruelty towards the husband.

8. The wife has not been able to explain any justifiable reason for having called the Police Control Room or having made a complaint in Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell. This fact assumes importance since subsequently, the complaint under CAW Cell was admittedly withdrawn by her.

9.   The appellant-wife has not been able to justify the ground on which these complaints were being made.

10.   Lastly, we may observe that the wife had left the matrimonial home on 19.10.2011, barely within one year and three months of marriage and since then, she has not made any reconciliatory efforts or attempted to return to the matrimonial home.

11. It needs no reiteration that the bed rock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal relationship.

12.   For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company, proves that the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of one spouse of conjugal relationship by the other spouse, is an act of extreme cruelty.

13.   This clearly leads to only one conclusion that wife had rejected and abandoned her matrimonial relationship.

14.   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.

15.   The marital discord between the parties has pinnacled to complete loss of faith, trust, understanding, love and affection between the parties.

16.   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.

Order

The wife has acted with cruelty towards the husband and divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955 has been rightly granted.

We do not find any merit in the present Appeal to interfere with impugned Judgment dated 11.09.2018, which is hereby dismissed.

Seema Bhatnagar