Gujarat High Court upholds grant of divorce in favor of husband due to desertion and wife’s cruelty; Ask him to pay 15 lakh in alimony

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a woman’s appeal against the verdict granting her husband a divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, and ordered him to pay her 15 lakh rupees in perpetual maintenance. The court also stated that the money was intended for the welfare of her child, who was living with the mother.

Chamber Justices of Justice Ashutosh Shastri and Justice Divyesh A Joshi said both parties had been living apart for more than eight years and had passed the point of no return.

“Considering the allegations and counter-allegations leveled at each other by rival parties, it is found that they have reached a point where they can no longer reconcile, bury their differences and live together, forgetting their past like a bad dream. We therefore have no choice but to dismiss the present appeal, upholding the judgment and order of the Learned Chief Justice of the Gandhinagar Family Court and approving the divorce judgment,” the court said.

The couple married in 2009 and had a child in 2011. The husband filed a family lawsuit under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 in 2015, seeking a divorce from his wife on charges of cruelty and desertion. The divorce was granted in 2017. The decision of the family court was challenged by the woman in the Supreme Court.

Attorney PP Majmudar, representing the ex-wife, called the lower court’s judgment “flawed, contrary to international law, capricious and contrary to applicable principles of law” and claimed that crucial evidence had been ignored and insignificant aspects given undue weight.

Majmudar further argued that both parties’ allegations and counter-allegations resolved each other, making it unfair to grant a divorce on the basis of cruelty and desertion. Majmudar claimed that the wife did not inflict any kind of mental cruelty on the husband and was actually evicted from the home due to the constant harassment from the husband’s family.

Lawyer Abhishek Mehta, representing the former husband, argued that the family court’s ruling was fair and reasonable. He contended that the wife’s behavior from the beginning of the marriage was inappropriate for a newly married wife. Mehta also highlighted incidents of alleged cruelty, including an incident in which the woman allegedly inflicted injuries on her mother-in-law. He emphasized that the husband made several attempts to reconcile, but the wife decided not to return and finally filed for divorce.

The court found that the wife had filed an IPC Section 498-A and 354 complaint against him and her in-laws after the husband filed a lawsuit for divorce. The FIR was later lifted in another process, it said.

“It is also an accepted fact that the mother-in-law’s wife, in her husband’s absence, had struck the mother-in-law’s head with a pincer (saanasi), rendering her unconscious. When the mother-in-law was taken to the hospital for treatment, she made a concrete anamnesis that injuries were caused by the plaintiff. This fact is admitted by the wife in her cross-examination. Therefore, on the basis of this evidence, the question regarding the husband’s temperament and nature is proved by presenting very strong and convincing evidence,” the court said.

The court also said it was clear that the parties had been living apart since August 2014. “The Family Court, upon reviewing the on-file evidence, concluded that the appellant had proved that the defendant was not only cruel but had abandoned him since August 2014. The desertion lasted more than eight years at the present time and therefore, in our view, the marriage between the applicant and the defendant was irretrievably broken up,” it added, dismissing the ex-wife’s appeal.

However, the court also said:

“In light of the status of the parties and the economic condition of the defendant husband and the future of the young boy xxx who lives with the mother, we believe it reasonable that the payment of an amount of Rs. 15 lacs to the wife and for the welfare of the child as a permanent maintenance payment is consistent with the aims of justice.”

Case Title: DP versus PN / First Appeal #4199 of 2017

Appearance: Mr. PP Majmudar (5284) for Complainant(s) No. 1 Mr. Abhishek M Mehta (3469) for Defendant(s) No. 1

Click here to read/download the judgment