The Delhi HC was dealing with the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2019, whereby the petition filed by the Respondent for dissolution of Marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed, and the marriage between the parties has been dissolved.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant-husband and the Respondent-wife got married at Delhi. The parties resided together in New Delhi and after 64 days the respondent left the matrimonial home. The Respondent filed for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Respondent claimed that the parties did not consummate their marriage and there were dowry demands by the appellant and his family members. It was also contended by the respondent that the appellant fought with her constantly and used to torture her and lastly that he was suffering from a Bi-Polar disorder which he concealed from her before marriage.
Family Court’s Decision:
The Family Court held that the wife has brought sufficient material on record and given specific incidents of cruelty on the part of the husband. The Court stated that the respondent proved that the appellant was abusive, and had assaulted, beaten, and tortured the respondent continuously, accusing her of bad character suspecting of her having affairs. Also, the court found that the appellant did not show any interest in establishing conjugal relationship with the respondent. The Court held that series of acts/incidents would constitute the mental cruelty, which is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.
Appellant’s Contention:
The counsel for the appellant contented that the Family Court has not adjudicated the matter based on pleadings and has given findings on issues which were neither pleaded nor proved. It was also contended that the Respondent was not a reliable witness. The averments made in her petition are false to her knowledge and there exist many inconsistencies between the averments in the petition filed by her, and the statements made by her in the Cross examination before the Family Court. The appellant also stated that in the investigation conducted by the Police it was concluded that no offence of dowry demand or harassment was made out against the parents of appellant or the appellant himself, and the same was never challenged by the Respondent.
HC’s observations:
After looking into the submissions by both the parties the HC observed that no specific reason has been pointed out by the appellant to claim that the Respondent was not a reliable witness. Her cross examination by the appellant does not show that she faltered or could not withstand the same. The HC relied upon the case of Kuria v State of Rajasthan, that one incident, not having been pleaded or having certain inconsistencies, cannot make an individual an unreliable witness. Also, the Respondent had proved that the Appellant and his family had demanded dowry from her family, both at the time of marriage, and after the marriage and she has even placed on record email chats between herself and the Appellant establishing the same.
HC stated that simply stating that there was no dowry demand, is not sufficient to establish the innocence of the Appellant, especially when he himself has accepted that his mother did demand dowry. The Court found that appellant did seek medical assistance in a Rehabilitation Centre called Hope Foundation and was treated for irritability and depression. Also, the court added that the numerous complaints and specific incidents of cruelty both mental and physical, show the true conduct of the Appellant, which cannot be expected in any healthy matrimonial relationship.
The HC relied upon the case of Laxmi v. Kanhaiya Lal where the Court stated that “when the fight goes to the point of them filing cases against each other, the situation becomes messy and bitter for both of them. Unless the situation is diffused early and the parties decide to reconcile and call a truce, with passage of time, the void between them only increases, and the feeling of love and warmth in their relationship begins to fade. What is left is only a feeling of hurt, hatred, disrespect, disregard and bitterness for the other.”
The HC relied upon the case of Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh and N.G Dastane v. S. Dastane while explaining the term mental cruelty where the court observed that there can be no fixed parameter in determining cruelty. In most of the cases, cruelty is inflicted by one party and felt by another in a variety of circumstances. What may constitute cruelty in one matter may not constitute cruelty in another. Each case and relationship must be viewed separately and its own totality.
The HC also stated the case of Sivasankaran v Santhimeenal, where the SC held that “In view of the legal position which we have referred to aforesaid, these continuing acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to the institution of the petition, as was found by the Trial Court. This conduct shows disintegration of marital unity and thus disintegration of the marriage.”
Further the HC relied upon the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, where the SC stated that “Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down.”
HC held:
The HC after evaluating various case laws and submissions by both the parties held that the number of incidents pleaded and duly proved by the Respondent before the Family Court are sufficient to hold the Appellant guilty of marital cruelty and is a ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia). These instances cannot be said to be the ordinary wear and tear of day-to-day life. The HC stated that there has been a complete breakdown of marriage and is beyond repair. The HC dismissed the appeal.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Rahul Kesarwani v. Sunita Bhuyan
Case Details: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 75/2020
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments