The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with an appeal moved by the appellant-husband to quash and set aside an earlier Family Court order, in which it granted divorce by in favour of the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In the present case, the marriage between the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 22.05.1997.
Even though the parties have been married for nearly 24 years, they have not spent a major part together as husband and wife. They separated on April 13, 2010, and have not lived together since.

The bond between the parties has broken down and the respondent was subjected to repeated harassment at the hands of the appellant, making it impossible to reconcile their differences.

“We are, therefore of the view, that the respondent has well established the ground of mental cruelty by the appellant, in the light of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511,” the court said.

The counsel for the appellant has requested to modify the decree of divorce dated August 10, 2021 passed in favour of the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, into a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent has not consented to divorce by mutual consent. For this reason, we cannot grant a divorce by mutual consent to the parties, it stated.

The court also noted that the husband failed to comply with various orders of this Court, as well of the Supreme Court, and the Family Court qua payment of the maintenance and preferred to indulge in frivolous litigations instead of paying the outstanding maintenance amount.

The Court observed that the conduct of the appellant clearly showed that the appellant deliberately and intentionally did not abide by the orders of the Supreme Court, High Court and the Family Court.

It noted that the husband had put the entire burden on the wife to manage the house, her job, and to look after the children and that he did not take any responsibility and, on the other hand, continuously abused the wife and insulted her and her family members.

“The appellant even disrespected her father, and doubted the respondent’s character. The appellant demanded money to give divorce to the respondent. He failed to discharge his duties as a husband – and especially as a father. Even after directions of this Court and the Family Court, the appellant falsified about his earnings and failed to pay the maintenance for his daughters. Prima facie, the allegation of domestic violence had been proved and learned MM granted interim relief to the respondent,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.