Karnataka High Court: Judicial Powers Cannot be Exercised by Conciliators in Lok Adalats  ||  Mad. HC: Registering Authorities Not Empowered to Cancel Sale Deed Through Summary Proceedings  ||  Telangana High Court: Section 18 UAPA is Penal in Nature, Needs to be Proved by Prosecution  ||  Karnataka High Court: Rights of Adopted Child of Indian Parents Cannot be Left Marooned  ||  All. HC: No Authority to Additional Chief Medical Officer to File Complaint Under PCPNDT Act  ||  Kar. HC: Cannot Prosecute Second Spouse or Their Family for Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC  ||  Calcutta High Court: Person Seeking to Contest Elections is Deemed Public Interest  ||  Mad HC: In Absence of Prohibitory Order u/s 144 CrPC People Assembling and Demonstrating Not Offence  ||  Bom. HC: Legal Action to be Taken Against Doctor for Gross Negligence in Conducting Postmortem  ||  Bom. HC: Husband Directed to Pay Wife Compensation of Rs. 3 Crore for DV & Calling Her ‘Second-Hand’    

Akshay Sharma v. Kamlesh Sharma - (High Court of Delhi) (17 Aug 2016)

Party seeking divorce under matrimonial offence theory must be innocent

MANU/DE/2092/2016

Family

Admitted facts in instant case were that, Appellant/husband got married to respondent/wife on May 05, 1992 according to Hindu rites. Parties stayed together for a short duration. During short stay, Respondent conceived and gave birth to a son on February 19, 1993. Parties continued living separately even after birth of son and thereafter on August 26, 1994, Respondent/wife lodged FIR No.500/1994 under Sections 498-A/406/34 Indian Penal Code against Appellant. However, matter was compromised and parties started living together in terms of settlement entered into on October 13, 2003 and resumed cohabitation. On April 06, 2004, Respondent/wife gave birth to a female child. Respondent/wife again left her matrimonial home in year 2005 and had not returned thereafter. In year 2012, Appellant/husband filed a Petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights which had been dismissed by learned Judge, Family Court. Thereafter, Petition seeking dissolution of marriage on account of desertion by Respondent filed which had been dismissed by learned Judge, Family Court.

Intention of Appellant/husband not to give a chance to Respondent/wife to resume cohabitation is well established through evidence and proceedings on record. Petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights was just to create a ground for seeking divorce. Stand taken by Respondent/wife expressing her intention to resume matrimonial obligations had effect of conceding to prayer made in Petition under Section 9 of Act, 1955 by wife which was not acceptable to Appellant/husband.

As Appellant/husband was not willing to take Respondent/wife to matrimonial home, he cannot blame Respondent/wife for deserting him without any reasonable cause or excuse. Party seeking divorce under matrimonial offence theory must be innocent. Appellant/husband who was at fault, when he declined the offer of his wife to join him unconditionally though, he himself filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, proved that, Respondent/wife was not to be blamed. Being a wrongdoer, he could not take advantage of his own wrong.

Respondent/wife had no intention to destroy matrimonial life and she giving birth to two children though the second time she reunited after 12 years of separation showed that she never abandoned the relationship. This was sufficient to dismiss Petition for dissolution of marriage on account of desertion by Respondent.

Tags : MARRIAGE   DISSOLUTION   GRANT THERETO  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved