Case Details:
Case No.: Mat. App. (F.C.)167 of 2019
Bench: Hon’ble Suresh Kumar Kait, J., Hon’ble Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Delhi High Court upholding the divorce granted to husband held that “A wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations. Pressurizing spouse to fulfil distant and whimsical dreams clearly not within his financial reach may create a sense of persistent dissatisfaction which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquility out of any married life. One must tread carefully between the needs, wants and desires.”
The appeal has been filed by the appellant wife (respondent in the divorce petition) against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2019.
The factual matrix discloses that the parties got married on 22.05.2017 and one child is born from the wedlock on 18.06.1999.
The respondent husband in his divorce petition asserted that after marriage they resided in Nagina along with parents of the husband but on his wife insistence they shifted to Delhi. However, the attitude of the wife was unaccommodating, temperamental and she had frequent differences with the sister-in-law on petty matters.
The husband claimed further that he took an LIC policy to secure the future of the wife in case anything happened to him.
He also stated an incident which happened after the birth of the child she accused a family friend of the husband and made public allegations of having illegal relationship with the husband which caused him mental trauma and humiliation to him.
The husband was also blamed by the wife for being source of all the unhappiness in her life and for not being able to provide her with the comforts of life. “She dreamt of a high society life and refused to adjust in the limited resources which led to frequent quarrels with the respondent.”
The husband also asserted that in December 2004 the wife left the matrimonial home and went to her paternal home without informing the respondent and despite much counselling she refused to return. She, however, came back in March 2005 for the child examination but again left in June 2005, in his absence and took away all her belongings and thereafter refused to return to the matrimonial home and did not even allow the husband to meet the minor child.
The wife denied all the allegations and stated that she is a graduate and has always been faithful, respectful and obedient towards the respondent and her in-laws and attended all her matrimonial obligations dutifully. She further claimed that all her attempts to live in the matrimonial home were frustrated and defeated by the husband.
The issues on the pleadings were framed on 28.07.2008, as under:-
“ (i) Whether respondent has treated the petitioner after solemnization of the marriage with cruelty? (ii) Relief.”
The Court observed that the parties admittedly got married on 22.05.1997 and had one son from their wedlock. The marriage survived till 2005 i.e. for about eight years before the parties separated.
The record shows that the entire testimony of the respondent/husband in regard to the quarrelsome nature of the appellant, suspicion and allegations against his character and her failure to discharge her matrimonial obligations inter alia has remain unrebutted.
The Court after hearing both the parties and perusal of record observed that “we therefore conclude that the learned Judge, Family Court, has rightly held that the respondent was subjected to cruelty, to grant divorce under Section 13 1 (ia) of the HMA.”
The Court had relied on the following judgments
1. N.G. Dastane v . S. Dastane
2. A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur
3. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh
4. Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur
5. Smt. Gajna Devi v. Purushottam Giri
6. Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar