"Husband & Wife Two Pillars Of Family, Whole House Crashes Down If One Gets Weak": Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce Granted In Wife's Favour

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Family Court granting divorce in favour of the wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 observing that the wife had well established the ground of mental cruelty by the husband.

The Family Court had granted divorce to the respondent wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the HMA solely relying on ground of mental cruelty.

While upholding the same, a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed thus:

"Husband and wife are two pillars of the family. Together they can deal with any situation, balancing the family in all circumstances. If one pillar gets weak or breaks, the whole house crashes down. The pillars can withstand all the abuses together, the moment one pillar gets weak or deteriorates, it becomes difficult to hold the house together. When one pillar gives up, and puts all the burden on the other pillar, then it cannot be expected that one pillar will single handedly hold the house together."

The marriage between the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 22.05.1997. The parties cohabited as husband and wife and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. Soon after the marriage, the relationship between the couple turned sour. Marital differences cropped up between the parties and the divorce petition was preferred by the respondent wife on grounds of continuous acts of cruelty inflicted by the husband.

The Family Court allowed the divorce petition against the appellant husband by the impugned judgment. The appellant had then challenged the said judgment alleging that the Family Court had erred in striking out the defence of the husband and not allowing him to lead his defence evidence, and granted divorce by relying on the allegations of the wife, which were contrary to submissions on record.

The issues raised in the case were as follows:

- Whether the Family Court was right in striking off the defence of the appellant?

- Whether the respondent/wife was able to prove the charge of cruelty with cogent evidence against the appellant/husband before the Family Court?

The Court noted that the issue before the Family Court was not about the admissibility of the documents, but about the belated stage at which the appellant sought to bring the same on record.

It also noted that the husband failed to comply with various orders of this Court, as well of the Supreme Court, and the Family Court qua payment of the maintenance and preferred to indulge in frivolous litigations instead of paying the outstanding maintenance amount.

"The appellant was directed by this court to deposit the maintenance amount, failing which the appellant shall bear the consequences. Instead of the paying the maintenance on time, the appellant preferred to repeatedly flout the directions of this Court. Hence, we are of the view that the Family Court was justified in striking off the defence of the appellant. The appellant was very well aware of the consequences of his actions," the Court noted.

At the outset, the Court observed that the conduct of the appellant clearly showed that the appellant deliberately and intentionally did not abide by the orders of the Supreme Court, High Court and the Family Court.

"At various instances, the appellant undertook to make the payment and the dates were extended with his consent, but he disobeyed the orders. Number of opportunities were given to the appellant. However, it appears that the intentions of the appellant was not clean from the beginning. Even after number of directions of the Courts, the appellant casually filed petitions, without following any of the directions," the Court noted.

The Court thus opined that the Family Court was right in striking off the defence of the appellant husband qua non-payment of the maintenance, after number of opportunities were given by various Courts.

"Since, the evidentiary affidavit or additional documents that the appellant wishes to place on record could not have been relied upon by the Family Court, the dismissal of application to file evidentiary affidavit does not prejudice any right of the appellant. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Family Court relied upon the written statement of the appellant. The appellant cross examined the respondent. Since the defence of the appellant was struck off, he was not allowed to lead his evidence or file additional documents, representing his case, directly or indirectly," it added.

The Court further noted that the averment of the appellant husband that he was only getting pension and had no other source of income was disproved by testimony of the Tax Assistant from Income Tax department. It was thus observed that the same showed that the appellant was not interested in taking responsibility of his daughters and contributing towards the family expenses.

"This itself would have caused considerable trauma and harassment to the respondent, who was single handedly shouldering the responsibility of bringing up two daughters, without any financial or emotional support from their father. Hence, we do not agree with this submission of the appellant that the respondent had not substantiated her ground of cruelty before the Family Court," the Court observed.

It noted that the husband had put the entire burden on the wife to manage the house, her job, and to look after the children and that he did not take any responsibility and, on the other hand, continuously abused the wife and insulted her and her family members.

"The appellant even disrespected her father, and doubted the respondent's character. The appellant demanded money to give divorce to the respondent. He failed to discharge his duties as a husband – and especially as a father. Even after directions of this Court and the Family Court, the appellant falsified about his earnings and failed to pay the maintenance for his daughters. Prima facie, the allegation of domestic violence had been proved and learned MM granted interim relief to the respondent," the Court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: x v. Y

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 395

Click Here To Read Order