Case Details:
Case No.: MAT. AP. (F.C.) 173/2022
Bench: Hon’ble Suresh Kumar Kait, J. and Hon’ble Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
The Delhi High Court rejected the appeal of the appellant wife – upholds the judgment passed by the Learned Family Court on grounds of cruelty by appellant wife.
The appellant wife filed a number of false and frivolous cases against the husband and his brother which upon investigations the learned Family Court termed as “patently apocryphal” and has held to amount to cruelty.
The learned Family Court also observed from the statement of the husband, which remained unshaken and stood proved, that the wife did not allow consummation of marriage. The Hon’ble High Court further observed through the subsequent pleadings reflected that the appellant wife used to resist his endeavor for sexual intercourse and was always reluctant. The husband himself deposed that he had asked appellant wife to accompany him to the doctor since they were not having a child.
The Court relied on Vinita Saxena v Pankaj Pandit case where the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the marriage without sex is an anathema. Sex is the foundation of marriage and without a vigorous and harmonious sexual activity it would be impossible for any marriage to continue for long.
The Court further observed that the parties have barely been able to live together for about thirteen months and have not been able to sustain their matrimonial relationship. For a couple to be deprived of each others company and conjugal relationship is an extreme act of cruelty as has also been endorsed by the Apex Court. It needs no reiteration that the bed rock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal relationship. For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company, proves that the marriage cannot survive and such deprivation of conjugal relationship is an act of extreme cruelty.
The Court further observed that the 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 ground. The Court held that the false complaints filed by the wife against the husband, constitute mental cruelty against the husband.
The Court further observed with respect to Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act that in a marriage where there has been a long period of continuous separation it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to severe 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 and can be termed as mental cruelty. In the instant case the parties have been living separately since 2014 and such separation of almost 9 years is an instance of utmost mental cruelty, asking for immediate severance of matrimonial relationship on the ground of cruelty u/S 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
Hence, the Court upheld the judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court and concluded the the respondent husband was entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty.