Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Divorce To Omar Abdullah From Estranged Wife Payal Abdullah

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea moved by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah seeking divorce from his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan rejected the petition moved by Omar Abdullah challenging a family court order passed on August 30, 2016, dismissing his plea for divorce.

Omar Abdullah and Payal Abdullah got married on September 01, 1994. They have been living separately since the year 2009. They have two sons.

“…we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Family Court that the allegations of cruelty were vague and unacceptable and that Appellant failed to prove any act which could be termed as an act of cruelty, whether physical or mental, towards him,” the court said.

It was Omar Abdullah's case that his marriage with Payal Abdullab had “irretrievably broken down”. He also sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by her.

The family court had refused to grant him divorce, observing that he failed to prove irretrievable breakdown of his marriage with Payal Abdullah.

The family court had also said that Omar Abdullah could not prove his claims of cruelty or desertion, which were also the grounds alleged by him for grant of decree of divorce.

Observations of High Court

Dismissing Omar Abdullah's plea, the court rejected his submission that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 has a lower threshold of proof given the fact that marriage under the said enactment is not a "sacrament" in the way it is under Hindu and Christian personal law.

The could ruled that threshold cannot be applied to a Petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under the Special Marriage Act vis a vis Hindu Marriage Act.

Analyzing the provisions of both the Acts, the bench said that both the enactments use identical expression while providing for a ground for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 

“Since both the Acts have similar provision in respect of nearly all the incidences of marriage and divorce and identical provision in respect of ground for divorce on the ground of cruelty, there is no basis to hold that lower threshold should apply while considering a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under the Special Marriage Act,” the court said.

It added that the expression “treated the petitioner with cruelty” used in both the Acts has to be given the same meaning.

On merits of the case, the bench found Omar Abdullah's allegation, that Payal Abdullah did not support him in his Political career, as unsubstantiated.

“The Family Court after appreciating the evidence led on behalf of the parties has come to the conclusion that Appellant/petitioner had not been able to prove any conduct of the Respondent which could be termed as cruelty,” the court noted.

In September, a single judge had directed Omar Abdullah to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1,50,000 per month to Payal Abdullah and also increased the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 75,000 which was directed by the family court in April 2018. 

The single judge did so in light of Omar Abdullah's financial capacity to provide a decent standard of living to Payal Abdullah and their two sons and the standard of living enjoyed by him previously.

The court had also directed Omar Abdullah to pay Rs. 60,000 per month to both sons for their education, even though they are majors and not entitled to any maintenance as per law.

Title: Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276