Delhi High Court: In a matter of dissolution of marriage, the Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi, ACJ and Jasmeet Singh, J., expressed that husband and wife together can deal with any situation, if one gets weak or breaks, the whole crashes down.
Husband preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to quash and set aside the judgment passed by the Family Court.
On grounds of continuous acts of cruelty, the divorce petition was preferred by the wife and the family Court had allowed the said petition against the husband by the impugned judgment.
Husband stated that the issues which require adjudication in the present matter are as follows:
(i) Whether the Family Court was right in striking off the defence of the appellant?
(ii) Whether the respondent/wife was able to prove the charge of cruelty with cogent evidence against the appellant/husband before the Family Court?
Analysis and Discussion
High Court noted while rejecting the plea of the husband that fresh documents cannot be filed at the stage of evidence and are required to be filed along with a reply or written statement.
Order 8 Rule 1A (1) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) mandates the defendant to file the documents in his possession at the time of filing the written statement. In case the defendant fails to file such documents at the time of presenting the written statement, then the same shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant.
Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 empowers the Family Court to receive any evidence, whether or not the same is relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act if, in its opinion the same would assist it to deal effectually with the dispute before it.
The Bench stated that, the appellant failed to comply with various orders of this Court, as well as of the Supreme Court, and the Family Court qua payment of the maintenance and preferred to indulge in frivolous litigations instead of paying the outstanding maintenance amount. The appellant was directed by this Court to deposit the maintenance amount.
In Court’s opinion, the Family Court was justified in striking off the defence of the appellant.
High Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337, wherein it was dealing with the divorce petition filed by the husband which he amended later from adultery to cruelty.
The Family Court in the present matter had granted divorce to the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA solely relying on the ground of “mental cruelty‟.
Remarking that “Husband and wife are two pillars of the family”, High Court held that, when one pillar gives up and puts all the burden on the other pillar, then it cannot be expected that one pillar will single-handedly hold the house together.
Hence, Court upheld the observation of the Family Court on noting that the husband had put the entire burden on the wife to manage the house, her job, and look after the children and he failed to discharge his duties as a husband and especially as a father.
Lastly, the High Court found that the bond between the parties has irretrievably broken down and wife was subjected to repeated harassment by the husband. Therefore, the wife had well established the ground of mental cruelty by the husband in light of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511.
In view of the above, the present appeal was dismissed. [Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Preeti Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1263, decided on 2-05-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Appellant:
Md. Azam Ansari, Advocate with Mr Ashfaque Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Mr Gaurav Goswami with Mr Tarun Goomber and Mr Pankaj Mendiratta, Advocates
