Though the Court denied permanent alimony to the woman, it directed the man to pay a monthly amount of ₹10,000 to their daughter.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted a divorce to a man even though he was convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward his wife.
The division bench, including Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma, decided that the husband’s conviction in the case filed by the wife amounted to cruelty, making it impossible for him to continue living with her.
“A perusal of the present case shows that respondent- wife lodged an FIR against the appellant/husband, resulting in the appellant’s conviction. This action of respondent/wife constitutes cruelty, as it is practically impossible for the party against whom FIR is lodged or case is registered to live together under one roof. Consequently, this situation amounts to mental cruelty inflicted on the appellant/husband by the respondent/wife,” the Court said.
The Court also noted that although the woman had accused her in-laws of cruelty, they were acquitted.
“Since the appellant/petitioner was convicted, though the parents were acquitted but still the harassment faced by the family amounts to cruelty on the part of the respondent-wife,” it said.
Interestingly, while ruling in favor of the husband, the Court also stated that the wife would not receive permanent alimony due to her overall conduct.
“The harm which is caused by her to the appellant/husband by lodging the FIR which led to his conviction leaves a stigma of being convicted on the appellant/husband which amounts to mental cruelty,” it said.
In this case, the couple married in 2004 and had a child in 2005. In 2007, the wife filed a police complaint against the husband under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In 2009, the husband sought a divorce, citing desertion and cruelty. However, the Family Court denied his request in 2018.
When appealing to the High Court, the husband argued that he and his wife had been living apart for 19 years, and his criminal conviction and sentence made it impossible for him to live with her.
The wife, on the other hand, claimed she still wanted to live with him. The Court questioned her claim, suggesting that if she truly wanted to reconcile, she should have filed for restitution of conjugal rights rather than pursuing a criminal case.
“Learned Court below has dismissed the divorce petition on the ground that since the appellant instituted a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in the year 2007, therefore, the acts of cruelty of respondent wife were condoned by the appellant/petitioner. Further that allegations of cruelty levelled by the appellant/petitioner against the wife remained unproved, whereas the Court did not observe that in fact it would amount to cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife,” it noted further.
In his appeal to the High Court, the husband stated that he and his wife had been living separately for 19 years. He argued that due to his criminal conviction and sentence, it was impossible for him to live with her.
The wife, however, claimed that she still wanted to be with him. The Court questioned this, pointing out that if she genuinely wanted to reconcile, she should have filed for restitution of conjugal rights rather than pursuing a criminal case.
“In the present case, the emotional foundation of the marriage has completely vanished. The course which has been adopted by the Family Court below would encourage continuous bickering, perpetual bitterness and may lead to immorality. If the Courts find that there is practically no possibility of their staying together and the marriage has been irretrievably broken as seen in the present case, then a decree of divorce should be granted,” it said.
The Court observed that the wife’s filing of an FIR against the husband was considered an act of cruelty. It also noted that the couple had been living apart for approximately 19 years with no attempts at reconciliation.
This demonstrated that the marriage was beyond repair, prompting the Court to dissolve it. Although the Court did not award permanent alimony to the wife, it instructed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month for their daughter.
“After marriage of the daughter, both the parents shall be duty bound to look into the needs of the daughter and to give love and affection to her,” it ordered further.
Senior Advocate GS Punia and advocate Harveen Kaur represented the husband.
Advocate Sarabjit Singh represented the wife.
Please give me the full judgment. We are victims of 498A.
Hello GP Mahanty,
Please call us on +91-9560020498 regarding this.