The Delhi High Court granted divorce to a woman on grounds of desertion, noting that no law gives a husband the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture.
The Court was dealing with a marital appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act 1955 which the Applicant/Wife filed against the judgment and decree of the Family Court Judge stating that her petition under Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Marriage Act was dismissed Hindu Act 1955 (HMA) to grant divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Partition seat included Judge Suresh Kumar Kait And Justice Nina Bansal Krishna detained, “It is also important to refer to another set of medical documents dated 24.10.2014 and later dates of DDU Hospital. In the absence of any refutation on the part of the defendant, it must be considered that her testimony of physical assault was supported by the medical documents. Just because the parties are married and the defendant is her husband, she did not Any law gives him the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture.Such behavior on the part of the defendant is necessarily considered as physical cruelty which entitles the appellant to divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court said that the application for divorce was filed after more than two years of separation and, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to file for divorce on grounds of desertion under Section 13(1)(b) of the HMA.
Attorney Nikhil Mann No wife appeared to the appellant in a while Attorney Koblin K. Kandari It appeared to the defendant, which is the husband.
realistic background –
The defendant’s parents had died long ago and he was therefore living with his aunt and her family. The appellant claimed that shortly after marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture and was subjected to various atrocities which she continued to endure in the hope that the matter would be settled over time. However, the atrocities committed by the defendant and the family members are increasing day by day as their only aim is to get rid of the appellant so that they can marry off the defendant to another girl from a rich family.
The appellant became pregnant, but she was given medication forcibly, which led to the child’s abortion, and despite her repeated requests, she was not shown to a doctor, but was abused and humiliated. Due to the physical and mental torture, it became impossible for her to continue living in the marital home. It was alleged that the defendant had an affair with his sister-in-law. Finally the appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and also registered an FIR against the defendant and his family members. However, the Family Court considered that the appellant was unable to substantiate her grievance claims before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments of the two parties’ lawyers, noted that “The petitioner has also stated that she was left at her parents’ home on 11.05.2013 in an injured state, and then despite her efforts, the respondent failed to return her to the marital home. Again, the respondent did not explain the circumstances under which the appellant was left in the matrimonial home He also did not object to the appellant’s testimony that she was not returned to the marital home, for which there is no reason.”
The court said that the defendant had failed to resume companionship with the appellant, and therefore there was not only physical separation but also “hostility” for not returning the appellant to the marital home.
“…the defendant had no intention of resuming the marital relationship, which was also reflected when he chose not to contest the petition.… Before I conclude it is also important to note that the defendant present in court also stated that he had no objection to granting a divorceThe court added.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the defendant.
Case Title- Rekha Sehrawat v. Amarjit Singh (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:6162-DB)