Making Efforts For Reconciliation Isn't A Condition Precedent For Decreeing A Suit For Divorce: Allahabad High Court

The Court, however, added that if the Court prefers to examine the parties' conduct regarding reconciliation efforts, the conduct of both parties should be considered.

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed this while allowing an appeal filed by a Husband (Saurabh Sachan) challenging the family court's order dismissing a suit filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce against the respondent-wife.

It was his case that he and the respondent got married in November 2006 and that he belongs to the Kurmi caste, which falls within the 'other backward castes' category, whereas the defendant belongs to the Brahmin caste. For this reason, he claimed that his wife's family members were not willing for their marriage.

It was his further case that his wife used to treat herself to a woman belonging to a high caste, and she used to humiliate and abuse him on several occasions, even in the presence of friends and relatives.

It was also his case that his wife started residing separately from him (since June 2011) and is presently living at her parent's home along with their son, and she has stated explicitly that she would not live with him.

Against this backdrop, he pleaded before the family court that the defendant's acts mentioned above constitute cruelty against him and, thus, a decree of divorce be granted in his favour.

Her wife did not appear before the Family Court proceedings, and in November 2019, the Family Court ordered the suit to proceed ex parte.

In its order and judgment, the Family Court held that although the plaintiff (husband) alleged that the defendant (wife) used to repetitively humiliate him and insulted him due to him being of a different caste in the presence of his friends and relatives, the plaintiff did not get any friend or relative examined.

The family court judgment also recorded that the plaintiff-husband had not made any pleading or adduced any evidence to establish whether he had made any efforts to keep the defendant with him as his wife.

So far as the issue of desertion is concerned, the Family Court decided the same against the plaintiff-husband. It noted that the husband had stated in his complaint that his wife left him in 2011; however, in a separate writ plea (habeas corpus plea seeking child's custody), his wife had stated (in 2015) that she would not live with the plaintiff.

Thus, the Family Court considered these statements contradictory, leading to an inference against him.

However, the High Court did not find merits in the family court's observations. It noted that the wife's statement made in 2015 in the Habeas corpus case was, in fact, an affirmation of the husband's contention that she had not lived with the plaintiff since 2011.

In view of this, the Court concluded that the wife had deserted him in 2011 and had no intention of resuming cohabitation with him.

“In the present case, the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant has deserted him. The defendant did not respond to the summons issued to her and she did not come forward to assign any sufficient cause for her living separate from the plaintiff. She did not controvert the pleadings of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has successfully proved his desertion by the defendant, which is continuing since the year 2011,” the Court further noted.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the Court held that the husband had successfully proved by his ex parte evidence that his wife-defendant used to treat him with cruelty and she had deserted him since the year 2011.

Given this, the appeal was allowed, the ex parte judgment and decree were set aside, and a decree of divorce was granted in favour of the plaintiff-husband dissolving his marriage with the defendant-respondent.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: Vishwas Shukla,Ram Kumar Singh

Case title - Saurabh Sachan vs. Garima Sachan 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 539

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 539

Click Here To Read/Download Order