LI Network
Published on: 23 September 2023 at 11:10 IST
The Delhi High Court has upheld a divorce granted to a couple under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), stating that the prolonged deprivation of conjugal rights, spanning over 18 years, constitutes mental cruelty.
The court’s decision was based on the precedent set in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007).
The appellant, the wife, was dissatisfied with the divorce granted on grounds of ‘cruelty’ under Sections 13(1)(ia) and ‘desertion’ under Section 13(1)(ib) of the HMA. Subsequently, she filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984.
A Division Bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, stated, “In the present case as well, not only did the marriage between the parties last for barely 35 days but it failed entirely due to the deprivation of conjugal rights and consummation of marriage. It should not be overlooked that such deprivation over a period of more than 18 years itself amounts to mental cruelty, as observed in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (supra).”
The Bench also referred to the case of Rajeev Chadha v. Shama Chadha Nee Shama Kapoor (2012), in which it was emphasized that a marriage without a sexual relationship is unacceptable, and denying sex in marriage has an extremely adverse impact. There is nothing more detrimental to a marriage than disappointment in the sexual relationship.
Case Background:
The couple married according to Hindu customs and rites in 2004, and they did not have any children. The husband filed for divorce, claiming that from the very first night, he noticed abnormal behavior from his wife, who did not respond to his sexual advances. She called her brother, who took her to her parental home, stating that she was unwell and would return in 2-3 days. The husband visited her parental home to bring her back, but she expressed no interest in living with him.
Although she returned to the matrimonial home, she subsequently went back to her parental home without informing the husband or his family members. After being brought back again, she behaved poorly and openly declared her unhappiness with the marriage, showing indifference to the husband and his family members, and disrespecting the husband’s parents and other family members. The Family Court granted the divorce on the grounds of ‘cruelty,’ leading the wife to appeal to the High Court.
The High Court observed, “Allegations of dowry harassment led to the registration of an FIR, and the ensuing trial can only be considered an act of cruelty when the wife failed to provide evidence of even a single dowry demand. … However, as noted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, evidence confirms that the marriage was not consummated due to the wife’s resistance.”
The Court concurred with the Principal Judge, Family Courts, concluding that no serious or grave facts emerged to suggest that the marriage was unworkable within such a short period.
“The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, correctly concluded that while desertion was not proven, the appellant-wife’s conduct toward the respondent-husband amounted to cruelty, entitling him to a divorce decree under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955,” the Court concluded.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Seema v. Vijay Kumar
