Allahabad High Court: In an appeal challenging the validity of a judgment and decree passed by the Family Court , wherein the Court dismissed the suit for divorce, holding that after the FIR was lodged by the wife, the parties had entered into a settlement and resumed cohabitation and, therefore, the occurrences that had taken place prior to it cannot be taken into consideration for adjudicating whether the wife treated the husband with cruelty., the division bench of Rajan Roy and Subhash Vidyarthi*, JJ. held that the facts and circumstances of the case evidenced by the material available on record make out the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court dismissing the suit for divorce is unsustainable in law.
Background:
The parties got married in 2012. The wife denied living in her matrimonial home at Mallawan town and wished to live in Delhi. Thereafter, the husband resided with her in Delhi for some time but due to lack of proper residence, they went back to Mallawan. It was alleged that the wife did not cooperate in the performance of the household chores, and she went away with her father. Thereafter, she lodged a false criminal case against the husband, and his family, in which they were acquitted. Accepting the wife’s condition that she will not go to Mallawan, the husband started living with her at Delhi. In 2014, the wife went to live with her parents, and she delivered a baby girl in 2014, in which the husband rendered his full cooperation, but due to some quarrel he was not involved in the ceremonies of his daughter.
The husband further pleaded that false complaints were made by the wife against him and the Women’s Commission held mediation between the parties, but the wife did not agree to live with the husband or to let him meet his daughter. The husband also pleaded that the defendant was living separate from him for the past many years without any cause and she was threatening to entangle him in a false case.
The Family Court dismissed the suit for divorce by means of the impugned judgment and decree holding that after the FIR was lodged by the wife, the parties had entered into a settlement and resumed cohabitation and, therefore, the occurrences that had taken place prior to it cannot be taken into consideration for adjudicating whether the wife treated the husband with cruelty. Cases have been lodged against each other by persons of both sides and, therefore, filing of a false case cannot be ground for granting a decree of divorce. Minor differences in matrimonial relationships are normal and the same cannot be termed as cruelty. The Family Court further held that the parties resided together happily as husband and wife till 12-07-2014, the husband has not made any efforts for resuming cohabitation thereafter whereas the wife has expressed willingness to resume cohabitation with him and, therefore, the ground of desertion is not established.
Issues:
a) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case evidenced by the material available on record make out the grounds of cruelty and desertion?
b) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court dismissing the suit for divorce is sustainable in law?
Analysis and Decision:
After referring to Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497, the Court said that the parties are living separately from each other for a period exceeding a decade and the husband has not been able to meet his daughter even once during this period. These facts are sufficient to cause acute mental pain, agony and suffering to both the parties and it would make it impossible for the parties to live with each other, which would come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. The long period of continuous separation of a decade establishes that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. Marriage between the parties has become a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. This leads to mental cruelty.
The Court clarified that though the wife’s refusal to live with the husband may be without any intention of inflicting cruelty upon him, it would not make any difference, as intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The husband cannot be denied relief on this ground.
The Court remarked that by refusing to severe the tie between the parties, the Family Court has not served the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it has shown disregard for the feelings and emotions of the parties, which are not affectionate towards each other. Therefore, the Court viewed that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case make out a case for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The Court noted that the wife left the husband’s house on 09-05-2014 and she did not return to live with him till date, i.e. for more than a decade. She abandoned her relationship with the husband, which is sufficient to constitute desertion. Thus, the Court held that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.
Therefore, while setting aside the impugned judgment, the Court passed a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband.
[Apoorva Gupta v. Vandana Gupta, 2024 SCC OnLine All 4993, decided on 30-08-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Appellant: Akshat Kumar,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent: Sagar Singh,Jyoti Prakash,Shri Ram Maurya
