It is most refreshing and most reassuring to note that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled ABC vs XYZ in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 71/2020 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:DHC:147-DB while most rightly granting divorce to a man held unambiguously that the long separation of 11 years between the parties peppered with false allegations and complaints amounts to mental cruelty. It must be mentioned here that the Delhi High Court was dealing with an appeal that had been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the husband against the judgment and decree of the Family Court by which his divorce petition was dismissed on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna minced just no words to observe unequivocally that, “The parties are separated for about 11 years and the adjustment issues started mushrooming within the very first month of their marriage which were of such nature that the marriage could not even survive for more than 6 months. There is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered with false allegations and complaints have become a source of mental cruelty and insistence to continue this relationship would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties…. The separation for more than eleven years for no fault of the appellant, in itself is an act of cruelty.” Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this recent, remarkable, robust and rational judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna for a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of herself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Suresh Kumar Kait sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2020, passed by the Learned Judge Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi in HMA No.566/17 (OLD No. 124/13) titled as ‘Prahlad Kumar versus Deepa’, dismissing the divorce petition filed by the petitioner/husband, on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA, 1955’).”
As we see, the Division Bench observes in para 2 that, “Briefly stated the parties got married on 30.11.2011 and no child was born from their wedlock.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench lays bare in para 3 that, “The petitioner/appellant claimed that soon after coming back from their honeymoon on 18.12.2011, the respondent started putting pressure upon him to take her to her parental home and extended threats that in case she was not taken, she would commit suicide and falsely get the appellant and his family members implicated in frivolous cases. The appellant was thus compelled to take the respondent to her parental home on 24.12.2011.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that, “Thereafter, he persistently tried to persuade her and even visited the parental home of the respondent on 08.01.2012 to bring her back. Though, she remained adamant but was persuaded by her family members to return to the matrimonial home. The appellant in order to counsel the respondent to remain in the matrimonial home, called her father and brother to his house on 02.02.2012 and 29.02.2012, but they started blaming the appellant himself. Because of the pressure, the appellant again took her to the parental home on 15.04.2012, however, despite the humiliation and insults, the appellant brought her back to the matrimonial home. Eventually, the respondent left the matrimonial home on 15.06.2012 along with all her belongings and valuables, in the absence of the appellant. All his efforts to bring her back did not heed any positive result. A Panchayat was also held on 21.06.2012 but the respondent remained adamant in not returning to the matrimonial home.”
As things stands, the Bench specifies in para 5 that, “Faced with this adamant attitude, the appellant got served a Legal Notice dated 07.02.2013, calling upon the respondent to join the matrimonial home. A reply was given by the respondent making false allegations of dowry demand.”
It cannot be lost on us that the Bench notes in para 6 that, “The respondent made a complaint against the appellant in Aichik Bureau. The appellant along with his uncle, appeared before the Aichik Bureau on 06.06.2013 where they were abused and beaten up by the respondent and her family. The family members of the respondent also tried to malign the reputation of the appellant and his family members by making a telephonic call to PW-4 Sh. Shiv Kumar, father-in-law of the brother of the appellant.”
To be sure, the Bench states in para 7 that, “After filing of the petition, FIR under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 was also registered against the appellant, his brother, his father and two other family members, on the complaint of the father of the respondent. The appellant thus, sought divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the HMA, 1955.”
Truth be told, the Division Bench points out in para 14 that, “The learned Judge, Family Court referred to the rival assertions of both the parties and concluded that the appellant was unable to prove any act of cruelty and observed that the disputes between the two spouses were normal wear and tear of married life, which could be condoned. The divorce petition was therefore, dismissed.” Needless to say, the Division Bench states in para 15 that, “Aggrieved by the dismissal of the divorce petition, the present appeal has been preferred.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench reveals in para 17 that, “The appellant has deposed that soon after the marriage, the respondent insisted on going to her parental home and he was compelled to leave her on 24.12.2011 and was brought back home on 08.01.2012. Again, on her persistence, she was taken back to her parental home on 15.04.2012, wherein again she threatened to commit suicide and implicate the appellant and his family members. However, she was again brought back with great difficulty. The petitioner/appellant deposed that she was largely involved with her own family members with whom she remained engaged on her phone and frequently threatened the appellant and his family members with false implication in multiple cases. She was supported in her threats by her father and brother, who instead of counselling the respondent, always blamed the appellant and his family members.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 18 that, “In this context, it is significant to observe that though the respondent was asserting that she was not being taken back to the matrimonial home, it has come on record that the appellant had served a Legal Notice, dated 07.02.2013, requesting the respondent to join the matrimonial home to which she reverted by sending a reply making allegations of dowry demands.” Further, the Division Bench states in para 19 that, “He further deposed that she finally left the matrimonial home on 15.06.2012 along with her brother and Bhabhi, in his absence and took all her valuables and belongings with her.”
Most significantly, the Division Bench mandates in para 36 that, “The parties are separated for about 11 years and the adjustment issues started mushrooming within the very first month of their marriage which were of such nature that the marriage could not even survive for more than 6 months. There is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations and complaints have become a source of mental cruelty and any insistence to continue this relationship would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties. The marital discord between the parties has pinnacled as there is a complete loss of faith, trust, understanding and love between the parties. Such long separation brings with it deprivation of conjugal relationship and cohabitation which is the basic foundation of any matrimonial relationship. The separation for more than eleven years for no fault of the appellant, in itself is an act of cruelty.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 37 that, “In one of the momentous decisions, the Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 has held that once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time, the consequences of preservation of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective, is bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.”
While citing yet another remarkable case law, the Bench then hastens to add in para 38 stating that, “The Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 observed that in a marriage where there has been a long period of continuous separation with no possibility of reconciliation, it can be termed as mental cruelty to continue such a dead marriage.” What’s more, the Bench further points out in para 39 that, “While referring to the case of Samar Ghosh (supra), the Apex Court in the case of Gurbux Singh vs Harminder Kaur (2010) 14 SCC 301, observed by that while trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not entitle a party to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty; continuing and subsisting unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct which affects the physical and mental health of the other spouse, may lead to mental cruelty.”
While citing the most recent and relevant case laws, the Division Bench expounds in para 40 that, “Recently, the Apex court in the case of Rakesh Raman v. Kavita 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497, after relying upon the above referred observations of the Three Judge Bench in Samar Ghosh (supra), looking at the facts of the said case where parties were residing separately for almost 25 years; had no cohabitation during this period; no child was born from the said wedlock; and repeated efforts for reconciliation for settlement resulted in failure, concluded that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act.”
No wonder, the Division Bench rightly holds in para 41 that, “We therefore conclude from the evidence of the parties that the appellant was subjected to cruelty.”
In addition, the Division Bench directs in para 42 that, “The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the divorce is granted on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, 1955.”
Finally, the Division Bench concludes by holding in para 43 that, “The Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.”
All told, we thus see that the Delhi High Court after perusing the facts of the case very rightly grants divorce to the husband. It is rightly concluded by the Court that a long separation of 11 years peppered with false allegations and complaints is mental cruelty! No denying it!
