Delhi High Court Rejects Husband's Plea For Divorce, Says Matrimonial Disputes Due To Mere Lack Of Adjustment Are Unfortunate

The Delhi High Court has observed that unfortunate are the matrimonial disputes where the “fountain head of friction” inter se the spouses is mere lack of adjustment, understanding and the will to stay together.

“These factors are the wheels of the chariot of a workable marriage and if either spouse becomes averse to move together and chooses to abandon the relationship, then extensive reconciliatory efforts by one spouse, would also not yield any results,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

The court upheld a family court order dismissing a husband's petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

The bench said that it was a broken marriage where parties were residing separately for about 30 years and there was no possibility of reunion between them.

“It is a case where the marriage is dead but in recognition of the principle under S.23 (1)(a) HMA,1955, to grant a Divorce in the present case would be to add a premium to the recalcitrant and unreasonable conduct of the appellant (husband) in unilaterally refusing to discharge his matrimonial obligations and has indeed caused undefinable cruelty to the respondent (wife) by denying her the conjugality without any fault,” the court observed.

It said that none of the allegations claimed by the husband against the wife, that she had scant regard for his gifts, refused to participate in festivals and was insisting on a separate accommodation, were substantiated.

The court said that neither the husband made any serious allegation, grave and weighty enough to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty by the wife which could cause reasonable apprehension in his mind that living with her was unsafe and harmful for him.

It further observed that the husband never had any inclination for the wife to return to the matrimonial home, which was reinforced from his “blatant admission in his cross-examination” that he never went to her house after she was discharged from the hospital post delivery of the daughter.

“While the appellant has claimed that there was an understanding of respondent going to live in the parental home, but his own admissions that he was not present at the time of discharge of the respondent from the hospital, again corroborates the assertions of the respondent that appellant had no interest, whatsoever, in taking her back to the matrimonial home,” the court said.

It added: “The entire evidence, which is essentially not disputed but is admitted by the appellant thus, proves that the appellant at every point of time resisted the reconciliatory efforts made by the respondent and despite persistent efforts of the respondent did not permit her to join him in the matrimonial home. The appellant has also not been able to explain the reason why he never went to meet the respondent or make any effort to bring her back.”

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 271

Click Here To Read Order