Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed by the husband (petitioner) under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with 28 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the Judgment dated 09-10-2018, vide which his petition under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed. A division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., granted divorce to the husband, set aside the impugned order and held that the appellant was able to prove cruelty at the hands of the wife (respondent) as there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, police reports and criminal complaints and further aggravated by parental alienation, can only be termed as acts of mental cruelty.
The Court added “This dead relationship has become infested with acrimony, irreconcilable differences and protracted litigations; any insistence to continue this relationship would only be perpetuating further cruelty upon both the parties.”
The case revolved around a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife, who got married on 09-05-1998, according to Hindu rites, and had two daughters born from their wedlock. The husband, serving in the Indian Army, claimed that differences between the spouses emerged soon after marriage, leading to the wife’s departure from the matrimonial home in May 1999. Despite her return in September 1999, their relationship remained strained. The husband, alleging cruelty, filed for divorce under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He cited numerous incidents, including the wife’s refusal to contribute to household expenses, derogatory remarks about his qualifications, and physical violence against his mother. Additionally, he accused her of involving the police on false pretenses, humiliating him in front of friends and relatives, and making unsubstantiated allegations of adultery.
The husband contended that the wife’s conduct constituted mental and emotional cruelty, making cohabitation impossible. He argued that her actions, including involving their minor daughter in their disputes and making false complaints, were aimed at alienating the child from him. The wife, in her defense, accused the husband of physical and mental violence, neglecting her during pregnancy, and having an extramarital affair.
The court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties and observed that while marital disputes are common, the wife’s actions, especially involving the minor daughter and making baseless allegations, amounted to extreme cruelty. It noted that the husband’s attempts at reconciliation were thwarted by the wife’s non-cooperation and hostile behavior. The court further discussed precedents highlighting the significance of maintaining parent-child relationships and condemned the wife’s behavior as a clear case of parental alienation and mental cruelty. It emphasized the detrimental effects of such actions on the child’s psyche and upheld the husband’s plea for divorce.
The Court remarked that “The differences between two adults may arise due to myriad reasons, some may be temperamental or factual, but the irrationality of the conduct of the respondent is brought forth by her conduct of involving in eight years old child, in their disputes. The petitioner and the respondent may not have been able to generate mutual affection, respect and understanding due to their differences, but it does not justify the act of the respondent in embroiling their minor daughter in their fights. Taking a small daughter along with her with a specific design to the house of the appellant and then to make allegations of adultery and call the Police, is an act of ruining the psyche of a child and turning her against her father. This is a clear case of parental alienation where the respondent has not even spared her children and has involved them in her differences with the appellant. Such conduct of making unsubstantiated allegations of adultery coupled with involving their child in the inter se disputes between the parties, can be termed as nothing but an extreme act of cruelty.”
The Court further remarked that “The parties separated in the year 2006 and their efforts of re-conciliation, which followed thereafter, did not succeed and the parties are living separately since the year 2011. There is not an iota of evidence that after the parties separated, there was any effort made for reconciliation. Rather, the testimony of the appellant shows that having separated from each other, the respondent repeatedly visited the rented accommodation and made complaints to the police. The respondent’s acts reflect her non-reconciliatory attitude and establish that she withdrew from the petitioner’s company and abandoned her matrimonial relationship for no justifiable reason. For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company and denial of conjugal relationship by the other spouse, with no effort by the respondent/wife to resume the matrimonial relationship, is an act of cruelty.”
Thus, the court set aside the previous judgment and granted divorce to the husband on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court concluded that the husband had sufficiently proved the cruelty inflicted upon him by the wife, and continuing the relationship would only perpetuate further harm to both parties involved.
[Kanwal Kishore Girdhar v. Seema Girdhar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1468, decided on 28-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Mr. G.K. Chauhan and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Tomar, Advocates along with appellant in person.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate along with respondent in person.
Title is wrong and misleading.
The case is of the wife being bad spouse and bad mother.
Seems it is done intentionally.
Please read the judgment carefully. Sharing a para from the judgment
The differences between two adults may arise due to myriad reasons, some may be temperamental or factual, but the irrationality of the conduct of the respondent is brought forth by her conduct of involving in eight years old child, in their disputes. The petitioner and the respondent may not have been able to generate mutual affection, respect and understanding due to their differences, but it does not justify the act of the respondent in embroiling their minor daughter in their fights. Taking a small daughter along with her with a specific design to the house of the appellant and then to make allegations of adultery and call the Police, is an act of ruining the psyche of a child and turning her against her father.
A person may be a bad husband but that does not lead to the necessary conclusion of he being a bad father.