Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Laxmi vs Mukesh on 14 December, 2021

Author: Vipin Sanghi

Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh

                          $~25
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     MAT.APP.(F.C.) 117/2021 & CM APPL. 45053-45055/2021
                                LAXMI                                     ..... Appellant
                                    Through: Mr. Mukesh Birla with Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advs.
                                    versus
                                MUKESH                                            ..... Respondent
                                   Through:

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                                             ORDER

% 14.12.2021

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Presiding Principal Judge, Family Courts, South East District, Saket, New Delhi in HMA No. 895/2017. By the impugned judgement the respondent-husband's petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act to seek a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been allowed and decree of divorce has been granted.

2. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that upon realising that the appellant could not bear a child, she was subjected to cruelty and the respondent decided to get rid of her. He submits that the divorce petition was preferred due to the aforesaid reason only and not because the appellant had been cruel in any way to the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Family Court has gone on to believe the allegations against the appellant without any supporting evidence or basis. The allegation that the appellant had abused the respondent of having an incestuous relationship with his sister and an adulterous relationship Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:16.12.2021 13:47:20 with his bhabhi were not substantiated, which form the basis of the decree for divorce.

3. He further submits that after the respondent had preferred the divorce petition, the appellant had made a complaint which led to registration of FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the respondent continues to hold the jewellery and other articles of the appellant.

4. The respondent-husband during his examination had proved on record his complaint dated 29.04.2017 given to the police station as Ex. PW-1/7. This complaint, as is evident from the impugned judgment, contemporaneously set out the allegations made by the appellant against him including of his having incestuous relationship with his sister and adulterous relationship with his bhabhi. The Family Court has appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Disputes arising out of marital relationships between the husband and the wife have to be evaluated on the basis of the evidence that the parties are able to muster and produce, and it is not always possible to establish allegations or counter allegations with the same measure or quality of evidence, with which the parties are obliged to establish their allegations in commercial/civil disputes or in criminal matters i.e. on the standard of preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The Family Courts Act in Section 14 provides that the "Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not, the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act,1872". The Family Court has taken note of the background in which the police complaint Ex. PW-1/7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:16.12.2021 13:47:20 dated 29.04.2017 was made by the respondent. The same was made months before the filing of the divorce petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no basis for the making of the said complaint or that the same had been made by the respondent only with a view to create a ground of cruelty against the appellant. Once it is taken as established that allegations of the nature attributed to the appellant were made, there can be no doubt that such serious allegations against a man are bound to cause immense mental cruelty to him. There is nothing to show that he ever condoned the said conduct of the appellant. The plea that the divorce petition has been filed only because the appellant could not bear a child also has no merit. The appellant has admitted that the respondent had shown the Appellant to several doctors.

5. The parties were married on 15.11.2013, and they have been separated since 17.04.2017. It is nearly 5 years since then. There is no issue born out of the wedlock. In these circumstances as well, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.

6. Lastly, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned judgment would come in the way of the appellant in pursuing other legal remedies against the respondent. We may only observe that the impugned judgment deals with the aspect of divorce between the parties on grounds of cruelty alleged by the respondent and denied by the appellant. It would therefore be open to the appellant to peruse other proceedings, under other laws and the impugned judgment may be appreciated by the concerned Courts in the light of the submissions that the parties may advance.

7. The appeal along with all pending applications stand dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 14, 2021/sr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:16.12.2021 13:47:20