Lt. Col. Ankush Batra v. Bharti Chauhan

IN

LT. COL. Ank

Bharti Chauh

CORAM: H

H

Present: Ap

Re

M

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

Th dated 22.12.20 whereby the d (i-a) and (i-b) o respondent-wif BRIEF FACT

2.

Th that the marria Hindu rites and was born on 1 were quarrels b

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN

AT CHANDIG

FA

Re

Pr kush Batra

Vs.

an

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURE ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD ppellant-husband in person espondent-wife in person along w Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate.

---- HARMA J. he present appeal is preferred 023 passed by learned Principal divorce petition filed by the app of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 fo fe on the ground of cruelty and d TS OF THE CASE he brief facts of the case as men age between the parties was sol d ceremonies. Out of the said we

6.10.2015. The appellant is a d between the parties, the responde

NJAB & HARYANA GARH AO-171-2024 (O&M) eserved on 31.07.2024 ronounced on :27.08.2024

......Appellant

......Respondent ESHWAR THAKUR DEEPTI SHARMA with against the judgment and decr l Judge, Family Court, Panchku pellant-husband under Section or dissolution of marriage with t desertion was dismissed. ntioned in the divorce petition emnized on 04.09.2014 as per t edlock, one girl child namely Priy doctor in Indian Army. Since th ent-wife left the matrimonial hom

ree ula are yal ere

on 04.09.2016 Marriage Act,

19.11.2018 and 1955 for decree

3.

Le record dismisse by the appellan been the victim

SU

4.

Ap Court dismisse Act, 1955 with evidence, whic

5.

Pe learned Princip record and has 13 of Hindu M

6.

W respondent and

7.

Th the year 2016. ANALYSIS O

8.

A

i)

. The appellant-husband filed p 1955 on 12.09.2016. Therea d then filed petition under Secti e of divorce on the ground of cru earned trial Court after taking i ed the petition under Section 13 nt-husband on the ground that m of cruelty at the hands of the ap UBMISSIONS OF THE PART ppellant-husband submits that th ed the petition filed by him und hout taking into consideration ch was placed on record by him. er contra, learned counsel for th pal Judge, Family Court has rig rightly dismissed the petition fi Marriage Act, 1955. We have heard the appellant as d perused the whole record. his is an admitted fact that the p Meaning thereby that they are liv OF THE RECORD perusal of the record shows as u The divorce petition file

9.12.2018, was decided on 22.12

petition under Section 9 of Hin after, he withdrew the same ion 13 of the Hindu Marriage A uelty and desertion. into consideration the evidence of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 fil it is the respondent-wife who h ppellant-husband. TIES he learned Principal Judge, Fam der Section 13 of Hindu Marria the material facts and establish he respondent-wife submits that t ghtly appreciated the evidence iled by the appellant under Secti s well as learned counsel for t parties are residing separately sin ving separately for the last 8 yea under:- ed by the appellant-husband

2.2023. During this period and

ndu on Act, on led had mily age hed on ion nce ars. on

tod dis

ii) pa

iii) Au

iv) M be pre Se rig

v) Se

vi) for Th vii IP wh tha co fac res off

day no efforts have been made smissal of the divorce petition;

There are allegations and arties; ) The wife has made num uthorities against her husband; ) A perusal of order dated ediation and Conciliation Centre e reached between the parties be esent. After that the appellant-hu ection 9 of Hindu Marriage Act ghts vide order dated 19.11.2018 Thereafter, the appellant-ection 13 of Hindu Marriage Act ) A suit was filed by the res r asking her share in the prope he same was dismissed in default

i) The appellant-husband filed C 1860 against the respondent-hereby it was held by the Judici at from the perusal of the compl omplainant given in preliminary cie case under Section 500 spondent-wife was summoned ffence under Section 500 IPC.

by any of the parties even desp counter allegations by both t merous complaints to the Arm

30.01.2018 of the Nodal Offic e shows that a settlement could n ecause the respondent-wife was n usband withdrew the petition und t, 1955 for restoration of conjug 8; -husband filed a petition und , 1955; spondent-wife against the husba erty of the parents of the husban t. d a complaint under Section 499 -wife. Judgment dated 28.03.20 ial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchku laint as well as the testimony of t y evidence is concerned, a prim IPC is made out. Hence t to face trial for commission

pite my cer, not not der gal der nd. 9 of ula ma

vii ag bro eff of as

9.

Se proceeding to g duty of the Cou consistently w endeavour to b

10.

In Court directed

19.07.2024. T parties but afte be harmful for observes that t roof. Therefor dissolving thei each other in ot SETTLED LA

11.

Ho AIR Supreme "2

ii) The continuous making of a gainst each other show that the re oken down beyond any repair. fort to reconcile with each othe f the divorce petition both of the complaints against each other. ection 23(2) of Hindu Marria grant any relief under the Hindu urt in the first instance, in every with the nature and circumstan ring about the reconciliation betw n compliance of Section 23(2) o d both the parties to appear be This Court made every endeavou er observing the conduct of the p r both the parties if decree of d there is no possibility of their re, justice demands that they ir marital ties to avoid further ther matters. AW on'ble the Supreme Court in Na Court 1675, held as under:-

¶24The cruelty alleged may la e parties are accustomed to

allegations and counter-allegatio elationship between the parties h Both the parties did not make a er rather even during the penden em kept on filing the cases as w age Act, 1955 reads that befo Marriage Act, 1955, it shall be t y case where it is possible so to nces of the case, to make eve ween the parties. of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, t efore this Court vide order dat ur to settle the dispute between t parties, we find that rather it wou divorce is not granted. This Co staying/living together under o should be legally separated litigation between them involvi aveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, 20 rgely depend upon the type of l or their economic and soc

ons has any ncy well fore do ery his ted uld ourt one by ing life

co im * Pa me suf as wo pa we sen sp * (2 ha "M rel aff sp Th fra so br a ins in ap str

onditions and their culture and h mportance. Each case has to be d

*

*

¶8This Court in the case of andey, 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 71 ental cruelty is the conduct of o ffering or fear to the matrimo erefore, postulates a treatment to cause a reasonable appreh ould be harmful or injurious for arty. Cruelty, however, has to b ear and tear of family life. It can nsitivity of the petitioner and h e course of conduct which woul ouse to live with the other

*

*

¶1In Chetan Dass v. Kamla D 001)4 SCC 250, this Court obse ave to be basically decided on its Matrimonial matters are matters lationship. It demands mutual ffection with sufficient play for ouse. The relationship has to co he matrimonial conduct has now amed, keeping in view such norm ught to be controlled in the inter roader perspective, for regulating well-knit, healthy and not a d stitution of marriage occupies a the society, in general. Therefo pply any submission of "irretr raitjacket formula for grant of r

human values to which they atta decided on its own merits. *

* Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chand 19 : (2002)2 SCC 73, stated th other spouse which causes men onial life of the other. "Cruelty of the petitioner with such crue hension in his or her mind that the petitioner to live with the oth be distinguished from the ordina nnot be decided on the basis of as to be adjudged on the basis ld, in general, be dangerous for *

* Devi, 2001(2) RCR (Civil) 641 erved that the matrimonial matte s facts. In the words of the Cour s of delicate human and emotion trust, regard, respect, love a reasonable adjustments with onform to the social norms as we w come to be governed by statu ms and changed social order. It rest of the individuals as well as g matrimonial norms for making disturbed and porous society. T an important place and role to p ore, it would not be appropriate rievably broken marriage" as relief of divorce. This aspect has

ch dra hat ntal ty", elty t it her ary s of r a 1 : ers rt : nal ell. ute t is s in g of The lay e to s a

be cir liv do irr co 6, Co be of * cru hu ha Ho mu gr rea hu to qu ma of ge res

e considered in the backgr rcumstances of the case."

¶2In Sandhya Rani v. Kalyanram 88, this Court reiterated and took ving separately for the last mo oubt in our mind that the ma retrievably broken down. There oming together. Therefore, the Co

¶3In the case of Chandrakala Me the parties had been living se ourt came to the conclusion tha etween them because, according e marriage has irretrievably bro f their coming together. This Cou

*

*

¶1The Court dealing with the pe uelty has to bear in mind that t uman beings and the psychologi ave to be borne in mind before di owever, insignificant or trifling, e mind of another. But before th ust touch a certain pitch of sever ravity. It has to be seen wheth asonable person would tolerate e complainant should be called u uman life. Every matrimonial con the other, may not amount to uarrels between spouses, which h ay also not amount to cruelty. C f unfounded variety, which can be estures or by mere silence, violen

¶2The foundation of a sound mar specting one another. Tolerance

round of the other facts a m Narayanan, (1994) Supp. 2 SC k the view that since the parties a ore than three years, we have arriage between the parties h e is no chance whatsoever of th ourt granted the decree of divorc enon v. Vipin Menon, (1993)2 SC eparately for so many years. T at there is no scope of settlem g to the observation of this Cou oken down and there is no chan urt granted decree of divorce. *

* etition for divorce on the ground the problems before it are those ical changes in a spouse's condu isposing of the petition for divor g, such conduct may cause pain he conduct can be called cruelty rity. It is for the Court to weigh t her the conduct was such that it. It has to be considered wheth upon to endure as a part of norm nduct, which may cause annoyan o cruelty. Mere trivial irritatio happen in day-to-day married li Cruelty in matrimonial life may e subtle or brutal. It may be wor nt or non-violent. rriage is tolerance, adjustment a e to each other's fault to a certa

CC are has heir ce. CC This ent urt, nce d of e of uct rce. in y, it her mal nce ons, ife, be rds,

be trif de be cru in ch ap Th It co Ma (C Ma of ca ex Co for * Sc Bo ma in ou ac off Sep up oth

earable extent has to be inherent ifling differences should not b estroy what is said to have been e weighed from that point of vie uelty in each particular case an view the physical and menta haracter and social status. A t pproach would be counter-produ he Courts do not have to deal wi has to deal with particular ma ouple or a mere ideal one will p Matrimonial Court.

¶3In Durga P. Tripathy v. A Civil) 819 : (2005)7 SCC 353, Marriages are made in heaven. B f no return. A workable solution annot at this stage reconcile them eir past as a bad dream. We, xcept to allow the appeal and se ourt and affirming the order of r divorce.

*

*

¶0On May 22, 1969, the Gen cotland accepted the Report of oard, which suggested the subs atrimonial offences. It would be their basis proposals :"Mat utcome rather than the cause o ccusatorial principle of divorce ffences, increase bitterness and w eparation for a continuous perio pon a decision of at least one o her should act as the sole eviden

t in every marriage. Petty quibbl be exaggerated and magnified made in heaven. All quarrels m ew in determining what constitu nd as noted above, always keepi al conditions of the parties, th too technical and hyper-sensit uctive to the institution of marriag ith ideal husbands and ideal wiv an and woman before it. The id robably have no occasion to go Arundhati Tripathy, 2005(3) RC this Court further observed th Both parties have crossed the po n is certainly not possible. Part mselves and live together forgetti therefore, have no other opti et aside the judgment of the Hi the Family Court granting decr *

* neral Assembly of the Church f their Moral and Social Welfa stitution of breakdown in place of interest to quote what they sa trimonial offences are often of the deteriorating marriage. e tends to encourage matrimon widen the rift that is already the od of at least two years consequ of the parties not to live with nce of marriage breakdown." On

les, to ust utes ing heir tive ge. ves. deal o to CR hat oint ties ing ion igh ree of fare of aid An nial ere. ent

suf div Th rec irr of ce on un ha be ma ref sa fee as ma ho co try ce

¶12Constitu v.Varun Sreen

"3 on

e parties have separated and th fficient length of time and one of vorce, it can well be presumed th he court, no doubt, should s concile the parties; yet, if it reparable, then divorce should n f preservation in law of the unw ased to be effective are bound to e parties.

¶2We have been principally imp nce the marriage has broken d nrealistic for the law not to take armful to society and injurious to ere has been a long period of c e surmised that the matrimon arriage becomes a fiction, thou fusing to sever that tie the law nctity of marriage; on the contr elings and emotions of the partie

¶3Public interest demands not o far as possible, as long as po aintained, but where a marriag ope of salvage, public interest lie

¶4Since there is no acceptable ompelled to resume life with th ying to keep the parties tied for ased to exist." ution Bench of Hon'ble the Sup nivasan, 2024(1), observed as un

¶33Having said so, we wish to n the ground of irretrievable bre

he separation has continued for of them has presented a petition f hat the marriage has broken dow seriously make an endeavour is found that the breakdown not be withheld. The consequenc workable marriage which has lo o be a source of greater misery f mpressed by the consideration th down beyond repair, it would notice of that fact, and it would o the interests of the parties. Whe ontinuous separation, it may fai ial bond is beyond repair. T ugh supported by a legal tie. w in such cases do not serve t rary, it shows scant regard for es. only that the married status shou ossible, and whenever possible, ge has been wrecked beyond es in the recognition of that fact. e way in which a spouse can he consort, nothing is gained ever to a marriage that in fact h preme Court in Shilpa Sailesh der:- clearly state that grant of divor eakdown of marriage by this Co

r a for wn. to is ces ong for hat be be ere irly The By uld, be

be by has rce

is gr tha Co tot wa be fac ha fro wh int att suf rel ed an sp ch ec ar so Co me

¶13In Rake Hon'ble Apex

not a matter of right, but a discr reat care and caution, keeping at `complete justice' is done to b ourt should be fully convinced tally unworkable, emotionally erefore, dissolution of marriage ay forward. That the marriage h e factually determined and firm ctors are to be considered such ad cohabited after marriage; wh e nature of allegations made by eir family members; the orders om time to time, cumulative imp hether, and how many attempts w tervention of the court or throu tempt was made, etc. The p fficiently long, and anything ab levant factor. But these facts ha e economic and social status ducational qualifications, wheth eir age, educational qualificatio nd children are dependent, in wh e party seeking divorce intends ouse or the children. Question hildren, provision for fair and a onomic rights of the children a re relevant considerations. We w as to curtail exercise of jurisd onstitution of India, which is situ entioned can be taken as illustra esh Raman v. Kavita 2023 A Court held as under:-

retion which is to be exercised w in mind several factors ensuri both parties. It is obvious that t and satisfied that the marriage dead and beyond salvation an e is the right solution and the on has irretrievably broken down is mly established. For this, seve h as the period of time the part hen the parties had last cohabite the parties against each other a s passed in the legal proceedin pact on the personal relationsh were made to settle the disputes ugh mediation, and when the l period of separation should bove six years or more will be ve to be evaluated keeping in vi s of the parties, including th her the parties have any childr on, and whether the other spou hich event how and in what mann s to take care and provide for of custody and welfare of min adequate alimony for the wife, a and other pending matters, if a would not like to codify the facto diction under Article 142(1) of uation specific. Some of the facto ative, and worthy of consideration AIR Supreme Court 2144, t

with ing this e is nd, nly s to eral ties ed; ngs hip; by last be e a iew heir ren, use ner nor ny, ors ors n."

"1 tog sep Th We is ab me be is ca pa giv ar wo we

14.

Th Suman observe "2 dif me dif de pr ev ca de

¶18We have a married couple gether as a couple for four yea parately for the last 25 years. Th he matrimonial bond is complet We have no doubt that this relatio causing cruelty on both the bsence of cohabitation and t eaningful bonds and the existing e read as cruelty under Sectio erefore hold that in a given cas e marital relationship has broke a long separation and absence ase for the last 25 years), with arties; then continuation of suc ving sanction to cruelty which e re also conscious of the fact th ould affect only the two partie edlock." his Court in FAO No.M-287-20 ed as under :-

¶20There is no dispute rega fferent cases against the appell embers. Though under Section fferent grounds for dissolution o ecree of divorce can be granted rove the same against the other vidence etc. But the factual and ases is that the Courts cannot f espite the dismissal of Section

before us who have barely stay ars and who have now been livi here is no child out of the wedlo tely broken and is beyond repa onship must end as its continuati sides. The long separation a the complete breakdown of g bitterness between the two, has n 13(1)(ia) of the 1955 Act. se, such as the one at hand, whe en down irretrievably, where the of cohabitation (as in the pres multiple Court cases between ch a `marriage' would only me each is inflicting on the other. hat a dissolution of this marria es as there is no child out of t 018, titled as Sanjeev Kumar V arding the fact of institution lant-husband as well as his fam 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 195 of marriage are mentioned and d, if any of the parties are able by leading cogent and convinci d practical aspect of such kind force the parties to live togeth 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 19

yed ing ock. air. ion all s to We ere ere ent ean We age Vs. of mily 55, e to ing d of her,

pe we Hi an pa div gr un co ex ar to eff gr wo ma

ev br liv

etition for decree of divorce filed e fact of their not being able to ere asking for dissolution of m indu Marriage Act, 1955, prac ny win or loose situation. The arties amicably settle down th vorce petition under Section 13 rant of decree of divorce is dism nder Section 9 of Hindu Marri onjugal rights is allowed, practic xecution in such kind of matters. re not the properties for which e the other party. Emotions are ey cannot be forced to live tog ffort to live together during th ravity of allegations made aga ould actually be the weights atrimonial cases under the Hind *

*

*

¶6In view of latest law laid do very effort should be made by th e parties but where the Courts f eir reconciliation since the p roken down then by announcing t ve together by not granting the

d by any of the parties and desp o prove the ground on which th marriage. In litigation under ctically speaking, there cannot only win-win situation is that heir status mutually. Even if of Hindu Marriage Act,, 1955 f missed or for that matter petiti iage Act,, 1955 for restitution cally speaking there cannot be a . Since the parties to the litigati execution can be filed to retrieve attached to the parties for wh gether. Once the conduct and e period of their separation a inst each other is observed, th s and measures to decide du Marriage Act,, 1955.

*

* own by Hon'ble the Supreme Cou he Courts to save the marriage find that there is no possibility parties are emotionally hurt a the judgment and directing them decree of dissolution of marria

pite hey be for ion of any ion e it ich hat urt, e of y of m to

wo Fu * oth ma so as pr cri su im on

15.

In no efforts have rather allegatio have been mad parties has bro Hon'ble Supre 1955 and by th of settlement b and decree of

ould amount to forcing them urther it would amount to invitin em.

*

*

¶8In matrimonial cases seek her grounds, it is often difficult t ade by the parties inter se. Cou lely on the basis of proof of alle is done in criminal cases. Aft roved to be correct beyond rea iminal cases where the offence is

¶9In matrimonial matters, the e granting of a decree of divorce ch a decree. In either case, no mposed, as no court can compel ne roof or to cohabit. n the present case, the parties ar e been made by any of them to r ons and counter-allegations, co de against each other. This sho oken down irretrievably. Theref eme Court in matrimonial matte his Court referred to above, we between the parties and justice d f divorce under Section 13 of

to live together under one ro ng emotional break down of both *

* king a decree of divorce on a to practically prove the allegatio urts should not decide such cas egations or the evidence present fter all even if the allegations a asonable doubt, these are not s punishable. e only possible outcomes are eith e or the dismissal of the petition f o execution or punishment can l the parties to live together und re living separately since 2016 a resume their relations or to coha omplaints and counter-complai ows that the marriage between t fore, in view of law laid down ers under the Hindu Marriage A do not find any kind of possibil demands that the appeal be allow f Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

oof. h of any ons ses ted, are her for be der abit nts by Act, lity wed

dissolution of m

16.

In and decree dat Panchkula, is s The decree of dissolution of stands dissolve PERMANENT

17.

Af particular case fixing the perm the account of further directed daughter in her towards the m estate at any po

18.

Al

(SURESHWA

JUDGE

August 27, 202 tripti

marriage of the parties be granted n view of the same, the present ted 22.12.2023 passed by learne set aside and the petition filed b f divorce under section 13 of marriage of parties is granted ed. Decree sheet be prepared acco T ALIMONY fter taking into consideration th , this Court tried its level best t manent alimony. The appellant i respondent-wife within a period d to deposit Rs.15,000/- per m r account. It is further directed marriage of her daughter and he oint of time. ll the pending applications, if any AR THAKUR)

( E

d. t appeal is allowed. The judgme ed Principal Judge, Family Cou by the appellant-husband succee Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and marriage between the part ordingly. he facts and circumstances of t to do justice to both the parties is directed to deposit Rs.20 lakh d of six months from today. He month towards maintenance of that he shall bear all the expen e shall not disinherit her from y, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE d: Speaking

ent urt, eds. for ties this by h in e is his ses