GAURAV GULATI  [Appellant] Vs.  GITA PRAVIN  [Respondent]

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 298/2023

(2JB, SURESH KUMAR KAIT and Neena Bansal Krishna JJ. Delivered by NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J.)

Facts: The present Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA, 1955”) has been filed on behalf of the appellant/husband assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 07.01.2009 vide which the Divorce Petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of HMA, 1955 filed on behalf of the appellant/husband, has been dismissed.

Issue: Whether the Divorce petition has been rightly dismissed by the court?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

According to the appellant the respondent/wife (who was the respondent in the Divorce Petition) started misbehaving within 2-3 days of the marriage and started making demands for a separate accommodation. It is claimed that the appellant/husband was subjected to various acts of cruelty by the respondent by refusing to participate in the festivals such as Janamasthmi and rejecting the gifts given by the appellant claiming them to be cheap. The appellant/husband has further asserted that the respondent/wife again made a demand for a separate kitchen on 12.02.1995 and an oral settlement was entered into between the parties on 13.02.1995

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

The respondent/wife has contested the Divorce Petition and in her Written Statement took the preliminary objections that the Divorce Petition did not disclose any cause of action and that the appellant/husband himself was guilty of cruelty towards the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife, on merits, denied all the allegations made against her and asserted that she has always been a sincere and dutiful Hindu wife. She claimed that while she was in advance stage of pregnancy, she was not permitted to live in her matrimonial home by her in-laws and because out of the compulsion, the respondent/wife went to stay in the house of her Mausi temporarily.

Held: The court dismissed the appeal and held that, “We are conscious that this is a broken marriage where parties are residing separately for about 30 years and there is no possibility of reunion between the parties. It is a case where the marriage is dead but in recognition of the principle under S.23 (1)(a) HMA,1955, to grant a Divorce in the present case would be to add a premium to the recalcitrant and unreasonable conduct of the appellant in unilaterally refusing to discharge his matrimonial obligations and has indeed caused undefinable cruelty to the respondent by denying her the conjugality without any fault.”