SC: Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Correct Factual Errors Despite Alleged Concealment  ||  Supreme Court: Wrong Statement in Pleadings is Not Always a False Statement, Perjury Case Quashed  ||  SC: Under JJ Act, Murder Falls Within Heinous Offences; S. 302 IPC Prescribes Minimum Life Sentence  ||  Supreme Court: Cognisance of FERA Complaint is Invalid Without Prior Notice to the Accused  ||  Supreme Court: Terror Cases Cannot Curtail Constitutional Safeguards and the Right to Fair Trial  ||  Supreme Court: Terror Cases Cannot Curtail Constitutional Safeguards and the Right to Fair Trial  ||  SC Upheld Husband's Conviction For Murdering His Wife over an Extramarital Affair  ||  J&K&L High Court: Mere Admission of Issuing Cheque is Not a Plea of Guilt under S.138 NI Act  ||  Calcutta HC: Aadhaar Card Prima Facie Establishes Occupation; Demolition Without Notice is Unlawful  ||  Gauhati High Court: Wildlife Law Doesn't Bar Trade in Unprotected Ornamental Fish Species    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved