PH High Court grants divorce to husband, ₹18 lakh in everlasting alimony to spouse

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled on a divorce lawsuit filed by a man alleging desertion and the cruelty of his wife who filed false and frivolous lawsuits against him.

The Chamber of Judge Ritu Bahri and Judge Nidhi Gupta also awarded the wife permanent alimony of eighteen rupees as a full and final settlement, noting that the husband had already paid Rs. 23 laks to wife as alimony during litigation.

“Before the separation, although the parties have only been living together in a marital home for nine months and although there is no child by their marriage, and although during this litigation the applicant admittedly already paid Rs. 23 lacs to the respondent, nevertheless we consider it appropriate to grant her permanent alimony of Rs. 18,00,000/- (rupees eighteen laks only) as a full and final settlement,” the court ordered (emphasis added).

The case in brief

The husband/applicant lodged an application with the Family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking the dissolution of his marriage to the defendant on charges of cruelty and desertion. The same was dismissed by Additional District Judge Patiala in May 2017. He challenged the same and moved to the High Court.

He submitted to the High Court that he married the defendant/wife in November 2012 and that after the marriage they lived together as husband and wife for only 9 months (in total) and no child was born of the marriage.

In his plea, the husband claimed that his wife was domineering and disrespectful towards him and his family and that she picked fights without reason. She was also accused of frequently behaving in an abusive and arrogant manner and using swear words.

In order to further substantiate his case, it was submitted that in September 2013 his wife left him without a valid reason and took away all her dowry items, including those given to her by the applicant’s parents, and accordingly she was not thereafter in the applicant’s company had occurred it was alleged that the defendant had failed the applicant.

In relation to the allegations of cruelty, the husband submitted that his wife had filed countless false reports against the applicant and his family, and not just filed false reports with the Army Wives Welfare Association.

On the other hand, the wife denied all allegations and stated that she had in fact been abandoned by her husband. She also claimed that her husband used to torture her, illegally asked for dowry, and would beat her mercilessly and never pay her child support.

Court’s remarks

The High Court, finding flaws in the family court’s observations and order, found at the outset that the wife had made the most reprehensible allegations (which were not substantiated) against the applicant and his family, including allegations against her father and mother-in-law, who states that he used to behave inappropriately towards her.

“Admittedly, the defendant in this case admitted unequivocally during her cross-examination that her complaint against her father-in-law for alleged improper conduct was found by the police to be false and that he was therefore not attacked. However, the competent court did not address this aspect at all,” the court noted.

In addition, the court considered the fact that the family court had failed to consider certain important facts of the case, which showed that the wife had indeed treated her husband cruelly and left him voluntarily.

“From our point of view, the behavior of the parties in the present case shows that there are irreconcilable differences between the parties, which from today’s perspective make the marriage a pure legal fiction. It is undisputed that the parties have been living separately since 2013. Even attempts at mediation between the parties were unsuccessful,” the court noted when it concluded that full justice and an end to the anguish of the parties required allowing the immediate appeal.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the order under appeal of Additional District Judge Patiala overturned; the divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13(ia) and (ib) of the Act was granted and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a divorce decree.

Case title – Ratandeep Singh Ahuja v. Harpret Kaur [FAO-M-182 of 2017]

case quote:

Click here to read/download the order