READ ORDER | Wife Insisting To Live Separately From In-Laws, Prolonged Deprivation Of Conjugal Rights Is Mental Cruelty: Delhi HC Dissolves Marriage

The Delhi High Court in its order dated August 11, 2023 observed that a wife insisting on living apart from her husband’s family members without any valid justification can be considered an act of cruelty.

The Delhi High Court dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion after the parties actually made an out of court settlement. The couple had not been living together for almost 16-years. 

Punjab & Haryana HC Dissolves Marriage After 23-YEARS Of Separation Citing Irretrievable Breakdown As Ground For Divorce

Case:

The parties got married in November 2000 at Prashant Vihar, Delhi according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The couple has two children, a daughter born in March 2002 and a son born in September 2003 (both adults as on date). 

The wife left her matrimonial home on 20.07.2007 and failed to join back the matrimonial home. It was claimed by the appellant that he was subjected to cruelty and the respondent/wife deserted him.

The husband filed for divorce in December 2009 since his wife refused to return. After the Family Court rejected to dissolve the marriage, the husband appealed at the Delhi High Court citing complete breakdown of the relationship.

Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Man’s Appeal After 12-Years Separation Since Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Not Grounds For Divorce

Allegations by Husband:

According to the husband’s petition:

• The respondent/wife is a quarrelsome lady and did not pay respect to the elders at the matrimonial home
• The respondent/wife did not do household work
• The respondent/wife wanted to lead luxurious and extravagant life and she used to spend the entire income of the appellant/husband on cosmetics and costly clothes
• The respondent/wife insulted the appellant and his family members in front of other people thereby causing humiliation to the appellant
• The respondent/wife insisted the appellant/husband to reside separately from the parents, to which the appellant did not agree
• The respondent/wife frequently went to her matrimonial home and refused to return

Defense by Wife

In her written statement the wife alleged that she faced extreme hardship and was subjected to torture by the appellant and his family members since the day of her marriage and she finally left the matrimonial home on 20.07.2007. The respondent had asserted that she was earlier also made to leave the matrimonial home on 22.03.2004, but she had again joined the appellant, however, he continued to abuse, torture and beat the respondent.

SC Dissolves Two-Month Marriage After 16-Yrs | Invokes Irretrievable Breakdown As Ground For Divorce

Family Court

The learned Principal Judge, Family Court was of the opinion that the appellant husband had merely repeated the allegations of respondent using abusive language and not respecting him and his parents. It was concluded that the testimony of the appellant did not reveal any act of the respondent which could be termed as physical or mental cruelty and the incidents alleged were reflecting normal wear and tear of day-to-day life. Because no cruelty was proved on the ground of desertion, the petition was dismissed.

A Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna went through the submissions on record and observed that the parties had now entered into an out of court settlement and that the wife too did not have objection in dissolving the marriage. Thus, the bench ordered:

The respondent has not been able to show any justifiable reason for her insistence to have separate residence, however, this is brought forth from an out-of-court settlement which the parties have entered into to live separately but thereafter, she went back to live in the matrimonial home with other family members.

The only inference that can be drawn is that her insistence to live separately from the other family members was whimsical and had no justifiable reason. Such persistent insistence can only be termed as an act of cruelty.

Supreme Court Grants Divorce To Husband On Grounds Of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage After 22-Yrs

Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2016 judgment in Narendra v. K Meena, the High Court stated:

It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife.

The referred apex court order also stated:

In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where upon getting married or attaining majority; the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, the wife is expected to be a part of the family of the husband after her marriage.

She becomes integral to and forms part of the family and husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she should never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live with her separately.

Rakesh Raman Vs Kavita | Supreme Court Landmark Judgement | Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Can Be Read As Grounds Of Cruelty To Grant Divorce

The Delhi High Court further took note that the parties had no co-habited together since 2007 and also referred to the wife’s statement which read that she had no intention to reunite with her husband and thus also did not have objection to the divorce. 

The Court remarked:

Prolonged deprivation of conjugal rights coupled with the statement of the respondent in the Court that she has no intention to join the company of the appellant and has no objection to the grant of divorce, not only reinforces that such deprivation has resulted in mental cruelty to the appellant, but also reveals that the respondent/wife has no intention whatsoever to resume the matrimonial relationship.

The Delhi High Court allowed husband’s appeal and dissolved the marriage. 

Voice For Men India Note: Since this was an out of court settlement, we are not sure whether or how much monetary settlement has taken place between parties.

Currently, only the Supreme Court of India has the powers under Article 142 of the constitution to dissolve a marriage where there has been irretrievable breakdown, parties have been living separately for years/decades, yet either spouse refuses to consent to divorce. Unfortunately, by the time a contested matrimonial matter reaches top court, parties would have spent a minimum of 10-15 years in the lower courts and getting a divorce decree after losing out on prime years is just limited to a piece of paper and peace of mind. 

DO WATCH:

Irretrievable Breakdown In Marriage | Supreme Court Judgment | Ashwani Dubey | Voice For Men India