- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vipin Kumar Sharma v. Mithlesh Kumari .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant challenged the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, which dismissed his petition for divorce filed under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. The appellant and respondent were married on 8th February, 1985 according to Hindu rites, and three children were born of the marriage, aged about 18, 19, and 20 years at the time of the judgment. The respondent initially contested the petition by filing a written statement on 9th May, 2007 but later ceased to appear, resulting in an ex parte proceeding on 4th January, 2008. The respondent reappeared on 30th May, 2008, filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, but withdrew it on 29th July, 2008. The Trial Court dismissed the petition on grounds that the appellant failed to prove cruelty, held that the conduct alleged was part of normal matrimonial life, and found the appellant responsible for desertion and lacking bona fide intent to reunite. The petition was also held barred under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the appellant attempting to take advantage of his own wrongs.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant proved cruelty by the respondent sufficient to grant a decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995.
- Whether the appellant’s petition was barred under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act due to his own wrongdoing.
- The effect of the appellant’s prior petition for restoration of conjugal rights and findings of desertion and lack of bona fide intent.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the Trial Court’s findings and agreed that the appellant failed to prove the alleged cruelty. It held that the conduct complained of amounted to ordinary matrimonial difficulties and did not rise to the level of cruelty warranting divorce. The court noted that the appellant had lodged an FIR against the respondent, but observed that lodging an FIR alone cannot constitute cruelty until its allegations are adjudicated by a competent court. The matter was still sub judice, and therefore the FIR could not be considered as proof of cruelty. The court also relied on the Trial Court’s findings that the appellant’s conduct, including his prior petition for restoration of conjugal rights and findings of desertion, barred his claim under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, indicating the appellant was attempting to benefit from his own wrongs.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant’s petition for divorce is denied, and the Trial Court’s judgment stands confirmed. No broader legal precedent was established beyond affirming that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated and that a party cannot seek relief if barred by their own misconduct under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
J.R Midha, J.— The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge whereby the petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 has been dismissed.
2. The appellant was married to the respondent on 8th February, 1985 according to Hindu Marriage rites and ceremonies. Three children were born out of this wedlock who are now aged about 18, 19 and 20 years.
3. The respondent initially contested the petition before the learned Trial Court by filing the written statement on 9th May, 2007. However, she subsequently stopped appearing and was proceeded ex parte on 4th January, 2008. She again appeared on 30th May, 2008 and joined the proceedings and also filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order but the same was withdrawn on 29th July, 2008.
4. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the acts of cruelty against the respondent. The learned Trial Court has held that the conduct charged as cruelty against the respondent is in the nature of normal tits and bits of the matrimonial life and do not constitute cruelty to get a decree of divorce. The learned Trial Court further held that the appellant had filed petition for restoration of conjugal rights which was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had not approached the Court with clean hands. In the said judgment, it was also held that the appellant was responsible for desertion and had no bona fide will to join the respondent. The learned Trial Court also held the petition to be barred by Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act as the appellant was apparently trying to take advantage of his own wrongs.
5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the Trial Court record. I agree with the findings of the learned Trial Court. The appellant has not been able to prove the cruelty.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has lodged an FIR against the respondent. The lodging of the FIR per se cannot be said to amount to cruelty till the adjudication by the Competent Court with respect to veracity of the averments made therein. It is not disputed that the matter is still sub judice.
7. There is no merit or substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert