Best Divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1551, decided on 01-03-2024.

Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed by the appellant-husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., opined that temporary separation gave a sense of insecurity in the spouse’s mind that the other was not willing to continue the matrimonial bond. In the present case, it had been clearly demonstrated that soon after their marriage, parties had marital conflicts. The respondent-wife had no intention to live in joint family and to make herself comfortable, left her matrimonial home very frequently to live with her parents. Whereas, on the other hand the husband by arranging separate accommodation tried his best to keep her happy, but by choosing to stay with her parents, the wife had ignored her matrimonial obligations and deprived the husband of his fatherhood by keeping him away from his son. Thus, the Court opined that the husband was subjected to cruelty by the wife and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment dated 25-11-2019 and granted divorce to the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.

Decision

 The Court opined that in the present case, when the parties entered a wedlock, their intent was to share the responsibilities of future life. Further, in a catena of decisions, it had already been held that if a married woman was asked to do household work, the same could not be equated to a work of maid servant and should be counted as her love and affection for her family. The Court opined that in certain strata, the husband took the financial obligations and wife accepted household responsibility, thus even if the husband expected the wife to do household chores, it could not be termed as cruelty. The Court opined that in the present case, the husband bowed to the wife’s desires and arranged for a separate accommodation to save his matrimonial life. The husband was CISF member, and he had to be away on duty, but the wife on one pretext or the other abandoned her matrimonial home and lived with her parents. The Court opined that to nurture the matrimonial bond, it was of high importance that the parties live together and avoided leaving each other’s company frequently. Temporary separation gave a sense of insecurity in the spouse’s mind that the other was not willing to continue the matrimonial bond. The Court noted that the wife filed a complaint against the husband and his family members for dowry demand, which culminated into registration of FIR under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 of the IPC, and they were put to trial for the offences. Even though the husband was first held guilty of the offences, but in the appeal, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 04-20-2019. Subsequently, the Court relied on Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476 and opined that every aggrieved person had an absolute right to initiate appropriate legal action and approach the State machinery, however, such allegations had to be supported by cogent evidence. Though filing of a criminal complaint per-se did not amount to cruelty, however, grave and uncorroborated allegations amounted to cruelty. The Court opined that instances of cruelty were not to be taken in isolation, but cumulative effect of facts and circumstances emerging from evidence had to be taken into consideration and then draw a fair inference that whether a spouse had been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of another spouse. In the present case, it had been clearly demonstrated that soon after their marriage, parties had marital conflicts. The wife had no intention to live in joint family and to make herself comfortable, left her matrimonial home very frequently to live with her parents. Whereas, on the other hand the husband by arranging separate accommodation tried his best to keep her happy, but by choosing to stay with her parents, the wife had ignored her matrimonial obligations and deprived the husband of his fatherhood by keeping him away from his son. Thus, the Court opined that the husband was subjected to cruelty by the wife and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment dated 25-11-2019 and granted divorce to the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Best Divorce lawyer

Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in East delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in new delhi

Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi

Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court

Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi

Mutual consent divorce lawyer

Best mutual divorce lawyer

Maintenance case lawyer

Domestic violence case lawyer

Contested divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Adultery divorce case lawyer in Delhi India

Maintenance case lawyer

Alimony case lawyer

Top Divorce case lawyer

Best law firm for divorce case

498a case lawyer

CAW cell complaint case lawyer

Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi India

Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi India

Mutual consent divorce

Procedure for divorce

Maintenance case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Best divorces lawyer in noida