9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99 at Delhi as per the Hindu rites. The Respondent-husband is working as "Caretaker" in the Government of NCT of Delhi whereas the Appellant is a housewife. Out of this wedlock, one daughter was born on 15.06.2002 and the second daughter was born on 10.02.2006. Both daughters are living with the Appellant. 4. On 11.07.2010, the Respondent (husband) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") in the Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi against the Appellant (wife). The Respondent sought decree for dissolution of marriage essentially on the ground of "cruelty". 5. In substance, the Respondent, in his petition, pleaded 9 instances which, according to him, constituted "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the Appellant. 6. The first ground of cruelty was related to wife's behavior on the next day of marriage, i.e., 27.02.1999. It was alleged that the Appellant came out of the bedroom in night dress and that too late when the close relatives of the Respondent were sitting in the house. It was alleged that she did not pay r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office and misbehaved with the Respondent in the presence of other officials (Para 27). 15. The Respondent also alleged some instances in the petition. They, however, again essentially relate to the Appellant's behaviour with the Respondent and his family members. 16. The Appellant filed her written statement and denied these allegations. The Appellant also applied for restitution of conjugal rights against the Respondent in the same proceedings by filing petition Under Section 9 of the Act and inter alia alleged in her petition that it was the Respondent who has withdrawn from her company without there being a reasonable cause. She also while denying the case set up by the Respondent justified her case for restitution of conjugal rights. 17. The Trial Court framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings in the case: 1. Whether after solemnization of marriage, the Respondent has treated the Petitioner with cruelty? OPP 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce as prayed? OPP 3. Relief The following issues were framed based on the pleadings in the petition Under Section 9 of the Act: 1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the restitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f human behavior which may be considered relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". 24. Their Lordships then broadly enumerated 16 category of cases which are considered relevant while examining the question as to whether the facts alleged and proved constitute "mental cruelty" so as to attract the provisions of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act for granting decree of divorce. 25. Keeping in view the law laid down in Samar Ghosh's case (supra), when we examine the grounds taken by the Respondent in his petition for proving the mental cruelty for grant of divorce against the Appellant, we find that none of the grounds satisfies either individually or collectively the test laid down in Samar Ghosh's case (supra) so as to entitle the Respondent to claim a decree of divorce. 26. This we hold for more than one reason. First, almost all the grounds taken by the Respondent in his petition were stale or/and isolated and did not subsist to enable the Respondent to seek a decree for dissolution of marriage. In other words, the incidents of cruelty alleged had taken place even, according to the Respondent, immediately after marriage. They were solitary incidents relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tute an act of cruelty on the part of the Appellant so as to enable the Respondent to claim divorce. In the first place, no decree for divorce on one isolated incident can be passed. Secondly, there could be myriad reasons for causing such isolated incident. Merely because both exchanged some verbal conversation in presence of others would not be enough to constitute an act of cruelty unless it is further supported by some incidents of alike nature. It was not so. 33. We are also not impressed by the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that since the Appellant had made allegation against the Respondent of his having extra-marital relation and hence such allegation would also constitute an act of cruelty on the part of the Appellant entitling the Respondent to claim decree for dissolution of marriage. 34. Similarly, we are also not impressed by the submission of learned Counsel for the Respondent that since both have been living separately for quite some time and hence this may be considered a good ground to give divorce. 35. In the first place, the Respondent did not seek a decree of dissolution of marriage on these grounds. Second, the grounds of cruelty taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
