Gujarat High Court Upholds Grant Of Divorce In Favour Of Husband On Grounds Of Wife’s Desertion, Cruelty; Asks Him To Pay 15 Lakh As Alimony

Dismissing a woman's appeal against the judgment granting divorce in her husband's favour on grounds of cruelty and desertion, the Gujarat High Court ordered him to pay Rs 15 Lakh to her as permanent alimony. The court also said the money is for well being of their child, who is living with the mother.

The division bench of Justice Ashutosh Shastri and Justice Divyesh A Joshi said both the parties are residing separately since last more than eight years and they have crossed the point of ‘no return’. 

"Considering the allegations and counter allegations levelled by rival parties against each other, it is found that they have reached at the stage from where they cannot reconcile themselves, bury their differences and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to dismiss present appeal by confirming the judgment and order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar, granting decree of divorce," said the court.

The couple had got married in 2009 and a child was born to them in 2011. The husband in 2015 filed a Family Suit under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a divorce from his wife on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The divorce was granted in 2017. The family court decision was challenged by the woman before the high court.

Advocate P.P. Majmudar, representing the former wife, called that the lower court's judgment "erroneous, vaxacious, capricious and against the settled principles of law" and contended that crucial evidence was disregarded, and undue weightage was given to insignificant aspects.

Majmudar further argued that the allegations and counter-allegations made by both parties canceled each other out, making it unjust to grant divorce based on claims of cruelty and desertion. Majmudar contended that the wife did not inflict any mental cruelty on the husband and was, in fact, forced out of their home due to constant harassment by the husband's family.

Advocate Abhishek Mehta, representing the former husband, argued that the Family Court's judgment was just and proper. He contended that the wife's behavior from the beginning of their marriage was not suitable for a newlywed wife. Mehta also highlighted incidents of alleged cruelty, including an incident where the wife allegedly caused injury to her mother-in-law. He emphasized that the husband had made multiple attempts to reconcile but the wife chose not to return and ultimately the husband filed divorce petition.

The court noted that it was after the husband had filed family suit for divorce, the wife had filed a complaint under Section 498-A and 354 of IPC against him and her in-laws. The FIR was later quashed in a different proceeding, it noted further.

"It is also an admitted position of fact that wife had inflicted blow of tongs (Saanasi) on the head of mother-in-law in absence of husband, due to which she became unconscious. When the mother-in-law was shifted to the hospital for treatment, she has given specific history that injury were caused by the appellant herein. Said fact is admitted by the wife in her cross-examination. Therefore, on the basis of this set of evidence, the issue pertaining to temperament and nature of wife is proved by the husband by leading very cogent and convincing evidence," said the court.

The bench also said it is clear that parties are residing separately since August 2014. "The Family Court, on examination of the evidence on record, concluded that the appellant had proved that the respondent is not only cruel but also deserted him since August 2014. The desertion as on date is more than eight years and, therefore, in our view, there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the appellant and the respondent," it added, while dismissing the former wife's appeal.

However, the court also said:

"Considering the status of the parties and economic condition of the respondent-husband as well as future of the baby boy xxx , who is residing with the mother, we deem it proper that if an amount of Rs.15 Lacs is ordered to be paid to the wife and for well being of child as permanent alimony, it would meet the ends of justice."

Case Title: DP Versus PN /First Appeal No. 4199 Of 2017

Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 109

Appearance: Mr P P Majmudar(5284) For The Appellant(S) No. 1 Mr Abhishek M Mehta(3469) For The Defendant(S) No. 1

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment