Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Divorce Decree Passed During Covid-19 Pandemic; Says Marriage Sacrosanct, Wife Can't Be Condemned Unheard
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte divorce decree passed by the trial court in 2021, as the trial Court had conducted the hearing including recording of the evidence when the world was in the grip of Covid-19 pandemic.A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and K V Aravind allowed the appeal filed by the wife and set aside the decree passed by the trial court on the petition...
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte divorce decree passed by the trial court in 2021, as the trial Court had conducted the hearing including recording of the evidence when the world was in the grip of Covid-19 pandemic.
A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and K V Aravind allowed the appeal filed by the wife and set aside the decree passed by the trial court on the petition filed by the husband seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The bench remitted the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties.
The primary contention of the wife was that the trial Court took up the matter for hearing and disposed of the same during Covid pandemic period, contrary to the directions under SOP issued by the High Court. Further, she argued that the allegations of cruelty or the foundational facts were not proved by leading acceptable evidence.
The bench on going through the records noted that the petition for divorce was filed during Covid-19 pandemic period and the trial Court conducted hearings including recording of the evidence when the SOP to regulate the conduct of the cases was in force.
High Court said exception to SOP could be taken if urgent cases relating to maintenance or protection orders were taken up however, "by no stretch of imagination it can be said that taking up the case for divorce decree during the pandemic period was an extreme urgency.”
Further the bench remarked that the decree for divorce cannot be granted merely because the respondent-wife did not contest the matter. The Court has to satisfy itself that the grounds alleged were proved.
It held “Though the petitioner claimed that there was divorce between the parents of the respondent/wife, which triggered her mental health condition, except his self serving statement, he did not produce any proof of such divorce.”
Noting that the allegation of mental health condition is very serious, having regard to the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, High Court said trial court ought to not have accepted such allegations in the absence of acceptable evidence. It said “The petitioner did not produce any medical evidence or medical records to show that the respondent was suffering mood swings or other mental health conditions.”
Finding fault with the reasoning given by the trial court that the marriage is irretrievably broken down, the High Court said, “Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not the ground for granting decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) of the Act. Such power is exercised only by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Trial Court is not vested with such power. The impugned judgment is without application of mind and without appreciation of the evidence or the basic principle of evaluation of evidence.”
Allowing the appeal the bench opined, “Needless to say that the marriage is sacrosanct institution. The couple had 13 years of marital life and two children. In such a case, she should not be thrown out of the said institution without being heard.”
Appearance: Senior Advocate H Shanthibhushan for Advocate Suyog Herele for petitioner.
Senior Advocate K.Suman for Advocate Siddharth Suman for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case NO: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 6578/2021