A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Narula refused to set aside an order passed by the Trial Court wherein a divorce was granted to the respondent-husband.
Judgement of the Family Court was challenged before the High Court.
In this case, the Appellant-wife had approached the High Court against the judgement passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court where the relief sought by the wife u/s Section 12(1)(a) and (c).
The Trial Court had dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty as defined as u/s 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
Allegations made by the wife:
The appellant wife raised two main allegations:-
- She alleged her husband was impotent.
- It was also alleged that her husband and in-laws used to mistreat, torture and demand dowry from her.
Based on the allegations as mentioned above, the wife alleged that her husband had been cruel to her.
Response of the husband:
According to the husband, he was not impotent, and the allegations made by the wife were untrue and false. He also submitted that the allegations made by the wife caused him mental stress and it amounted to cruelty.
When a doctor examined the husband, he was found to be a typical male adult with fully developed sexual organ and secondary sexual characteristics. The Doctor concluded that the husband had a normal sexual function and was not impotent.
Observations of the Court
After going through the testimony of the Doctor, the Court observed that the decision of the Trial Court was correct, and their interference was not needed.
It was opined that as the wife had made specific allegations, the onus was on her to prove the same and the wife was unable to produce any medical or corroborative evidence to support the claim that her husband was impotent,
Another issue that was raised before the Court was whether allegations of impotence would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA.
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagat vs D Bhagat where it was held that mental cruelty as per Section 13(1)(ia) should be of such nature that parties were unable to live together.
The Bench observed that there could be no justification for a party to make untrue and false allegations and even if the wife had been hurt she could have used legal remedies and there was no need to humiliate the husband. The Bench further observed that in the instant case cruelty against the husband was of enduring and profound nature.
The Court upheld the judgement of the Trial Court, and the divorce was granted to the husband.
According to the Bench, the marital bond between the parties was beyond repair. Therefore if the marriage were not dissolved, it would cause further mental cruelty to the respondent-husband.
Title: Kirti Nagpal vs Rohit Girdhar
Case No.:Mat. APP (FC) No. 92 of 2020 & CM Appeals. 14842-14843 of 2020
Date of Order: 20.11.2020
Coram: Hon’ble Justice: Hon’ble Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Narula