Pushpa Rajai v. Jai Prakash Lalwani

order, concluded that there was no conjugal relationship between the parties for almost 8 to 9 years as the appellant/wife was living away from the respondent/husband at her matrimonial home in Gujarat or otherwise shunned physical relationship with him. The promise of marital cohabitation was reneged by the wife as she continued to refrain from physical intimacy with the husband. Till the pronouncement of the impugned judgement in 2013, the physical distance between the parties had remained the same;- Physical intimacy between a married couple is an essential aspect of marriage and consistent refrisal of physical intimacy strikes at the very root of the marital relationship.

¶11A frill bench of the Supreme Court in the seminal Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 had, after a detailed examination of the various authorities on the issue of what may amount to mental cruelty, as one of the instances of behaviour amounting to mental cruelty, held; Mat. App.(FC) 3/2013

¶101No uniformstandardcan ever be laid downfor guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviourwhich may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: [-.]

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercoursefor considerableperiod withouttherebeinganyphysicalincapacity or valid reason mayamountto mentalcruelty. [...]

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyondrepair. The marriagebecomesafiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it showsscant regardfor thefeelings and emotionsof theparties.Insuch likesituations,it may leadtomentalcruelty. The above dicta, in the opinion of this court, applies to the present matter on all fours.

¶12Even assumingthat the previousinstancesof crueltyhad been obliteratedin view of the settlementbetween the parties, the allegation of the respondent/husband having an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and niece itself constitutes cruelty.The appellant/wifedid not rebut this during her cross-examination.This manifestationof cmelty was inflictedupon the respondent/husband after the settlement agreement Mat.App.(FC) 3/2013 Page 18 of19 (condonation),and it continued till the impugnedjudgement was pronounced.The appellant did not condone this cmelty, which had also led to disruption of the family life of his relatives (brother's family had shifted out to save themselves from further insults and unwarranted ignominy). The Family Court, therefore, rightly returned the finding that the appellant/wifedid not deny this allegationof cruelty.In view of the aforesaiddiscussion,this court is of the opinion that the impugnedjudgementof the FamilyCourt is based upon sound evidenceand the conclusionsarrived at arejust. The decisionto dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty calls for no interference.

¶12Consequently, the appeal has to fail and is accordingly dismissed. OCTOBER , 2013 Mat. App.(FQ 3/2013 NAJMIWAZIRI,J (JUDGE) S. RAVINDRA BEAT, J (JUDGE)

u IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decidedon ; 1^.10.2013 + mat. APP. (FC) NO.3/2013& cm 7056/2013fmaintenanceV CM 7057/2013(delav) PUSHPARAJAI Appellant Through: MrJai Bansal,Advocate. Versus JAIPRAKASH LALWANI Through: Nemo Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRABHAT HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WA7TRT 1. This is amatrimonialappealarisingout ofjudgementand order of the Family Court dated ll^*" February, 2013 in HMA No. 686/2010("impugnedorder")wherebythe marriagebetween the parties was dissolvedon grounds of cruelty. The divorce petitionfiled under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 by the respondent/husbandhad allegeda numberof acts of cruelty, inter alia, of (a) the appellant/v/ifebeing Mat.App.(FC) 3/2013 Page 1 of19 itally Signed AMULYA ature Not Verified quarrelsomeand non cooperativetowardshim and his family members; (b) her confidingthat the marriagewas againsther wishes and not to a person of her choice; (c) her inabilityto respecthim and his family members; (d) constantpressurismg by her for livingseparately;(e) her visitingher maternalhome frequently, where she stayed for months together and her quarrelling whenever the issue was raised by the respondent/husband;(f) herbeinginhospitableto guests;(g)her rude and indiscreetconducttowardshis friends,and to relatives and neighbours;(h) denialofconjugalrelationship;(i) constant tlireats to commit suicide and implicate him and his family members in criminalcases in case her demandswere not met; (j) frequentvisitsby the elder sisterof the appellant/wifewho interfered in their day-to-day life; (k) compelling the respondent/husbandto leave his job in Muscat and movingto Ahmedabadwherehe had extremedifficultyin findingajob; (1) forcing him to hand over his entire salary to her, etc. The husbandhad contendedthat despitehis accordingher due care and affection and ensuring proper medical care during her Mat App.(FC)3/2013 pregnancy, she was adamantly quarrelsome and left the matrimonialhome alongwithher child on 4* November,2011. He had furthercontendedthat she repeatedlycomplainedto the police, alleging harassment by and concocting false cases against the respondent/husband and his family members. On 14^ February,2002, she receivedher entire]QVjQ\\Qrylstridhan pursuant to a case she had filed in Bhavnagar (Gujarat) under Section 114 IPG and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In another proceedings under Section 125 of Gr.P.G., she was awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 600/- per month for the minor daughter. 2. It further appears that the respondent/husband started living in Rohini from 15^*^ August, 2002 after he got a new job; the appellant/wifewas still residingat her maternalhome. On 19^^ January, 2005, the respondent/husband and his mother visited the appellant/wife at her maternal home and sought to bring her back, but she refused to join them. This effort was repeated by the respondent/husband on September, 2005, and after much persuasion, she did join him, but did not adjust with him. The Mat.App. (FC) 3/2013 Page 3 of19 respondent/husband had contended that she continued to be cruel to him and yet again left the matrimonialhome on 23'"'^ September, 2005, alongwith the minor daughter. He had also contended that while leaving she threatened him for his life. A divorce petitionwas filed on 13* September,2007 by the respondent/husband.However, the parties compromisedtheir differencesbeforethe learnedADJ-1,Rohini,and startedliving ina rentedaccommodationin Sector5in Rohinifrom 27'^ July, 2009, where the respondent/liusband'sother family members also resided. However, even thereafter, according to the respondent/husband,the appellant/wifereftised to have any conjugalrelationship(sexualrelations)with him and continued to be haughty, quarrelsome and aggressive, while contemporaneouslythreateningto commitsuicideby lightinga gas cylinder or pouringpetrol on and setting fire to hers