Tanisha Rana
Published on: October 10, 2022 at 23:12 IST
The Uttarakhand High Court recently imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on a man for fraudulently obtaining a divorce decree, noting that the institution of marriage is sacred to Hindus.
While rejecting the appeal, a bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe noted that the husband should have fairly and firmly severed his relationship with his wife prior to filing the divorce petition rather than continuing to live with her even after doing so.
“The appellant, by his aforesaid conduct, has gravely undermined the institution of marriage which is sacrosanct amongst the Hindus – the religion to which the parties belong,” the Court therefore said.
The appellant husband had appealed to the High Court a family court decision approving his wife’s request to set aside the ex-parte divorce decree he had obtained.
After the wife failed to show up to challenge the proceedings, the lower court awarded the decree in his favour.
The Division Bench did take note of the fact that the husband continued to live with the wife while the divorce was still being processed.
Additionally, it was noted that all parties’ addresses were identically displayed in the appeal.
The wife also disclosed to the Court that her signatures on the summons issued by the family court were forged by the husband and that she had not signed the summons.
She claimed that as a result, the order was clearly unlawful and should be revoked.
In this regard, the Court emphasised that despite sharing a home and raising three children together, the two spouses had total and implicit faith in one another.
“Therefore, if the husband were to – casually, ask his wife to sign a particular document, she would unhesitatingly sign the same without even enquiring as to what is the document on which her signatures are being obtained.”
“She would not even care to remember the fact that she has actually signed a document on the instructions of her husband,” the Bench explained.
The Court came to the conclusion that the appellant deceived his wife in order to trick her into signing the summons.
The wife was to receive Rs. 50,000 of the costs imposed, and the remaining money had to be submitted with the State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.
The appellant was represented by attorney Navnish Negi.
Case Title: Mahendra Prasad Dwivedi vs. Lajji Devi