Depriving Father From Meeting Daughter On Account Of Marital Discord Is Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that depriving a father from meeting his daughter on account of marital discord amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

While dismissing refusing to interfere in divorce granted on the ground of cruelty, division bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "that depriving the father of meeting his daughter, by her mother on account of marital discord between the spouses, would constitute an act of mental cruelty."

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a wife challenging divorce granted by the family court on the ground of cruelty and desertion by wife.

The husband detailed various events in his divorce petition, which according to him, constituted cruelty.

On the other hand, the appellant-wife submitted, inter alia, on the plea that the husband has levelled false allegations against her, which are general in nature. It was further contended that the husband cannot seek divorce on false and baseless allegations, especially without taking into account the potential adverse effects it would have on their minor daughter

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered the allegations raised by the husband that his wife left the gas knob on in the kitchen on three occasions.

It would "definitely raise a reasonable apprehension in the mind of respondent as regards his safety as well as the safety of his family members, therefore, the same would constitute an act of cruelty," the Court opined.

On allegations that the husband was not allowed by the wife to meet his daughter, the Court noted that the visitation rights was granted to the husband to meet her daughter by the family court and the wife did not voluntarily agree.

"Firstly; it is not the case of the appellant (wife) that she had voluntarily agreed or permitted the respondent and his family members to meet the minor daughter; rather it appears that it was only on account of intervention by the Court that the visitation rights were granted to the respondent and his family members," the Court observed.

"Secondly, it has come on record that the appellant had written a letter dated 10.04.2015 to the School, where the minor girl was studying, indicating therein that the respondent and his family members be not allowed to meet the minor daughter," it added.

The Court also noted that the wife celebrated the birthday of their minor daughter without inviting the father.

Reliance was placed on Kerala High Court's decision in Prabin Gopal v. Meghna, [2021 SCC online Ker 2193], wherein it was observed, "the mother had breached her duty which she owed as a custodian parent to instil love, affection and feelings in the child for the father. It was further observed that nothing can be more painful than experiencing once own flesh and blood i.e. the child, rejecting him or her. Such wilful alienation of the child amounts to mental cruelty."

Consequently the Court opined, "that depriving the father of meeting his daughter, by her mother on account of marital discord between the spouses, would constitute an act of mental cruelty."

Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage

The Court rejected the argument raised by the wife, that 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' is not a ground for divorce under the 1955 Act.

"We have considered the aforesaid submission and we are of the view that there is no doubt that irretrievable breakdown of marriage by itself is not a ground under Hindu Marriage Act, on which alone a decree of divorce can be passed. However, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a circumstance which the Court can take into account when cruelty is proved and blend them together," the bench observed.

In recent judgments, irretrievable breakdown of marriage has been blended with cruelty so as to dissolve the marriage between the parties, where the marriage is completely dead and beyond repair, it added.

The division bench noted that the parties have been residing separately since 2015 i.e. for more than eight years.

"No doubt, it is obligation of the Court that marital status should as far as possible be maintained, but when the marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing is gained to keep the parties tied to a marriage which in fact has ceased to exist. In our considered view, there is no possibility of resumption of normal marital life by the parties. If the decree of divorce is set aside that would amount to compelling them to further live together in complete disharmony, mental stress and strain, which shall amount to perpetuating cruelty," it said.

In the light of the above, the Court rejected the plea and upheld the divorce granted by the Family Court.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Mohak Bhadana-respondent-in-person.

XXX v. XXX

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 241