In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has set aside a lower court’s dismissal of a divorce petition, emphasizing that persistent harassment and refusal to cohabit by a spouse amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court, while hearing an appeal, underscored that denying a spouse’s conjugal rights and threatening behavior can have severe implications on mental and physical well-being, warranting the dissolution of the marriage.
Case Background:
The judgment pertains to First Appeal No. 32 of 2023 against the decree dated 19th January 2023, issued by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in Suit No. 1198 of 2018 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The appellant, represented by Advocate Rajesh Kumar Pandey, challenged the decision of the Family Court, which had dismissed his divorce petition filed against his wife, the respondent, on the grounds of cruelty. The appellant alleged that the respondent had subjected him to mental and emotional harassment soon after their marriage, which was solemnized on 23rd November 2016.
Key Legal Issues Involved:
The main legal issues addressed in this appeal were:
1. Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce: The appellant argued that the respondent had treated him in a cruel manner, constituting a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He claimed that the respondent’s behavior created a reasonable apprehension that it was unsafe for him to continue the matrimonial relationship.
2. Desertion by the Respondent: The appellant also contended that the respondent had deserted him since April 2017, five months after their marriage, and had refused to fulfill her matrimonial obligations, further contributing to the grounds for divorce.
Observations and Decision by the High Court:
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi delivered the judgment on 22nd August 2024. The Court noted that the Family Court had proceeded ex parte against the respondent as she had not appeared to contest the appeal despite sufficient service of notice.
In its observations, the High Court emphasized the significance of cohabitation in a marital relationship, stating:
“Cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship, and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse impact on his mental and physical well-being and will amount to both physical and mental cruelty.”
The Court also reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, where it was held:
“Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other.”
The High Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty. The Court found that the allegations of harassment, refusal to cohabit, and threats to commit suicide and entangle the appellant in criminal cases, as alleged by the appellant and supported by his father’s testimony, remained unrebutted due to the absence of the respondent.
“The testimony of family members cannot be discarded on the assumption that they will only support the plaintiff’s case. The entire evidence of the plaintiff remains unrebutted.”
Further, the Court dismissed the Family Court’s reliance on the appellant’s previous divorce from his first wife as irrelevant, noting that no allegations were leveled against him in that matter.
Court’s Decision:
In light of the above findings, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Family Court’s judgment dated 19th January 2023, and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant. The Court granted a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.
The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Presiding Officer who had passed the original judgment for his information.
Case Details:
– Case Number: First Appeal No. 32 of 2023
– Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Hon’ble Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
– Counsel for Appellant: Rajesh Kumar Pandey
– Parties: Appellant (Husband) vs. Respondent (Wife)
