Delhi High Court: The appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), was filed by appellant-husband against the Judgment and decree dated 28-7-2021, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Delhi (‘Principal Judge’) vide which the petition filed by appellant for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, was dismissed. The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., concluded that “to be openly humiliated and being called as impotent by respondent-wife, in front of others and for respondent to discuss their sexual life in the presence of family members, could only be termed as an act of humiliation causing mental cruelty to appellant”. The Court thus granted divorce to appellant on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA.
Background
Appellant got married to respondent, according to the Hindu customs and rites on 3-7-2011. Appellant submitted that due to medical limitations, no natural conception took place and they had to resort to In Vitro Fertilization (‘IVF’) treatment. Unfortunately, despite having undergone this IVF procedure on two occasions, the parties were unable to beget a child, due to which matrimonial differences started surfacing in their life. Appellant alleged that respondent insulted him, in front of her parents, sisters and other family members by alleging that he was impotent, without there being any basis or foundation.
Appellant submitted that when he along with respondent visited St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi (‘the hospital’) in 2011, for their regular check-up, the doctors said that the LH Level of respondent was too high and therefore, she was unable to conceive a child. Later, respondent conceived but she was diagnosed with Right Ectopic Gestation and the doctors said that the process of IVF had failed as the fertilized egg had entered into the right fallopian tube of respondent. Appellant did not say anything to respondent, but she blamed appellant for being responsible for the failure of IVF treatment.
Appellant, thereafter, took a separate residence as per the wishes of respondent, to live separately from the in-laws for the sake of saving his matrimonial life, but she never came to reside with him. Appellant thus sought divorce from respondent on the ground of cruelty. The Principal Judge observed that the allegations of appellant that respondent inflicted cruelty on him by calling him impotent in front of the family members, were vague and unspecified. It was further observed that parties tried to conceive through IVF process twice, but it failed both the times. The evidence submitted by appellant was held to be vague, non-specific and was held to be insufficient to prove his allegations of being humiliated by calling him impotent. The divorce petition was thus dismissed. Aggrieved by Principal Judge’s decision, appellant preferred the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the Principal Judge rightly held that the allegations by appellant that “respondent behaved in a typical, aberrant, freakish and abnormal manner and failed to discharge her household chores in so much as she refused to serve food and at times would throw the food served by appellant by claiming that it was not cooked well”, were general and vague.
The Court opined that appellant and respondent were capable of having a healthy sexual relationship but the complications in their lives arose because of the sterility of appellant, which was being termed as ‘impotency’. The Court noted that when the parties visited the hospital, it was found that appellant was having a condition called ‘Azoospermia’, due to which he was unable to conceive.
The Court opined that the public humiliation which appellant suffered by the knowing/unknowing acts of respondent in terming him impotent while it was a medical condition of sterility could not be overlooked as rather than respecting appellant’s privacy and being a little more discrete, public disclosures by respondent even if to the family members were a source of humiliation.
The Court relied on N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326 and concluded that “to be openly humiliated and being called as impotent by his wife, in front of others and for respondent to discuss their sexual life in the presence of family members, could only be termed as an act of humiliation causing mental cruelty to appellant”.
The Court relied on Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194 and opined that the fact that respondent had made frivolous and false allegations of dowry harassment against appellant, which she could not substantiate, was another act of cruelty. The Court further relied on Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476, wherein the Supreme Court had held that “reckless, false and defamatory allegations against husband and family members would have an effect of lowering their reputation in the eyes of the society and thus it amounted to cruelty”.
The Court observed that respondent detached herself from appellant, on account of his incapacity and decided to leave him and snapped their matrimonial relationship. Such withdrawal of respondent from the matrimonial relationship unilaterally without any reason or basis thereby depriving appellant of conjugal bliss, since October 2013 till date, could only be inferred as an act of cruelty.
The Court concluded that appellant had been subjected to cruelty and thus set aside the impugned judgment dated 28-7-2021, whereby the divorce petition was dismissed. The Court further granted divorce to appellant on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA.
[Saurabh Jain v. Neha Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1971, decided on 21-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Pratyush Chirantan, Santosh, Mandeep Singh, Advocate; appellant in person
For the Respondent: Rupali Kapoor, K.D. Sharma, Advocates with respondent
