Nbk02042024matfc1532022141443 532216

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 10th October, 2023

% Pronounced on: 2nd April, 2024
+ MAT. APP. (F.C.) 153/2022 & CM APPL. 42112/2022
DR. VIKAS GUPTA ..... Appellant

Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate
along with Ms. Kamakshi Gupta and
Mr. Manas Agrawal, Advocates.
Versus
DR. RAJNI GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Reena Jain Malhotra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
JUDGMENT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Marriage, personified as the essence of togetherness, blooms on the

fertile soil of mutual support, devotion and allegiance. However,
repeated acts of separation, akin to a relentless storm, only uproot this
foundation, scattering seeds of discord that threaten the sanctity of the
union. Amidst the tempest of distance and abandonment, this bond
breaks beyond repair, leaving behind irreparable scars on the
landscape of trust and commitment.
1. The Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has
been filed by the appellant, against the Judgment dated 11.04.2022 passed
by the learned Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Delhi vide which the
Petition for divorce bearing H.M.A. No. 166/2017, filed by the petitioner
under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed MAT. APP(F.C.) 153/2022 Page 1 of 23
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:04.04.2024
14:09:30
has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant/petitioner, who was a qualified MBBS
Doctor, got married to the respondent, who was also an MBBS Doctor, on
22.02.1992, according to the Hindu Customs and Rites. They were blessed
with one daughter on 09.05.1994 and one son on 11.12.2002. The life story
of the appellant/petitioner and the respondent, spans over about 19 years
when they eventually separated on 10.06.2011.
3. Essentially, the facts are not disputed though both appellant/petitioner
and respondent, have seen each incident in their own perspective. The
appellant/petitioner had claimed that the respondent possessed an
intemperate and volatile nature, who inflicted a vast panoply of cruelties
upon the appellant/petitioner and deserted him on at least seven occasions,
including the last and final desertion on 10.06.2011. This fact is not denied
by the respondent though she had her own explanation for each occasion,
when she left the matrimonial home.
4. It is claimed that since the day of their marriage, the
appellant/petitioner was conveyed that she wanted to marry another person.
The appellant/petitioner has alleged that the respondent and her family
members started falsely claiming that the appellant/petitioner had no
intention whatsoever to go for Honeymoon. While they were to go to Goa
from 25.02.1992 to 05.03.1992, the petitioner’s father suffered from a heart-
attack and had to be admitted to ICU, one day prior i.e. on 24.02.1992, on
account of which the Honeymoon had to be cancelled.
5. While the respondent has not denied the illness of the father-in-law or
of their trip being cancelled but had asserted that the money for the Goa trip
had been funded by her father and ironically, from the refund of the tickets,

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
which also was facilitated by her father, the petitioner’s father purchased a
Kinetic Honda Scooter instead of returning the money.
6. The petitioner/appellant had alleged that soon after the marriage, he
got service in Deepak Memorial Hospital, where he was getting Rs.2,100/-
per month being a duly qualified Surgeon but the respondent was earning
more salary, on account of which he was humiliated and the rumours were
spread in the family that the petitioner was less educated than the
respondent. The respondent on the other hand has asserted that both were
similarly qualified and there was no question of the family being disgruntled
by the alleged financial disparity in the salary of the appellant and the
respondent.
7. The appellant had also asserted that in March, 1992, the father of the
respondent had called the father of the appellant, to inform him that his
daughter would not be sharing her salary and it shall not be thrown in a
common pool to be used for sharing the household expenses of the parties.
He also threatened that the family must accept this situation or else the
family would be implicated in a false dowry cases. In regard to the sharing
of the salary of the parties, the respondent has asserted, which is eventually
not denied by the petitioner that soon after the marriage, a joint account of
the parties was opened and both would credit their salary in the same
account. This explains the background in which the respondent’s father had
called the petitioner’s father, to warn him against sharing of the salary by
both the parties.
8. It is further asserted that there was unnecessary interference of
respondent’s family in their household decisions, which led to frequent
quarrels inter se the parties and when the appellant tried to persuade her to

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
reduce this interference, the respondent and her family criticised him. On his
return from the hospital, the appellant frequently found the respondent either
on phone or not at home. The appellant had asserted that being a surgeon, he
used to start his day early in the morning for the hospital and had to maintain
a regulated life. The respondent, however, had an expectation of the
appellant attending all the small and big functions of her family and her
extended family which resulted in disruption of appellant/petitioner
professional schedule causing him embarrassment at place of work. On one
occasion in May, 1992, the respondent became unhappy about the amount of
shagun that was given by the petitioner’s family to her cousin, namely, Mr.
Naresh, on his marriage. The matter got escalated to an extent that her
cousin Mr. Naresh, intervened and threatened to teach appellant/petitioner a
lesson by kidnapping and murdering him.
9. He further claimed that the respondent had no respect for the
appellant, who along with her brothers and family members, would mock
the appellant/petitioner and degrade the profession of medicine and claimed
that doctors being always poor and struggle hard to make their ends meet.
They were all business people, who claimed to be earing crores of rupees,
while termed appellant as a pauper, who would never been able to achieve
similar financial success.
10. The appellant had claimed that the respondent never wanted to share
the financial burden. Every time he was in need of money, she did not come
forth to help them sail through the financial crunches. One such instance was
when he had gone to Zurich, Switzerland, for his fellowship in February,
2009, he was short of money but the respondent did not help him. The
appellant further asserted that when the parties separated, she claimed the

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
return of Rs.1.5 Lacs to Rs.2 Lacs, which she had allegedly spent on buying
clothes, etc. The respondent, has also asserted and thereby admitted that
before going to Zurich, she had spent Rs.1.5 Lacs to Rs.2 Lacs, for buying
clothes and other items for the appellant, for his stay in Zurich.
11. The appellant has asserted that he could not take the respondent along
with him because of the heavy involvement of finances, on which he was
routinely cursed by the appellant, who started a campaign of vicious
arguments and fights over the telephone, which caused him great distraction
and agony, in pursuing his Fellowship. In June, 2009, in order to
compensate his inability, to call them to Zurich, he arranged for a two-weeks
trip to Singapore, with the respondent and both the children.
12. The respondent has admitted that the trip to Singapore, was organized
in June 2009, but she claimed that was essentially because his relative was
living in Singapore and they were all supposed to stay in their house.
13. The appellant also asserted that because of the constant distractions,
he was compelled to return to India in July, 2009, leaving his Fellowship
incomplete. The respondent has refuted this claim by asserting that the
appellant had eventually being able to return to Zurich and he completed his
Fellowship in August, 2009.
14. The appellant has claimed that the behaviour of the respondent had
always been erratic and in their 19 years of married life, there are at least
six occasions, when she left the company of the appellant and finally left
the matrimonial home on 10.06.2011.
15. The first separation by the respondent was in October/November
1992. The appellant claimed that on all major festivals, they used to be a
major discord between the parties. After Diwali in 1992, they both had a

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
major argument as the respondent was not satisfied with the gifts given to
her siblings. Later, she in fit of rage telephoned her elder sister, Ms.
Poonam, who came to their house and stretched the matter out of proportion;
later she staged the dharna on the road outside the petitioner’s house
causing him lot of embarrassment. The respondent along with her sister, left
the matrimonial home by stating that she would never return back.
Eventually, on the intervention of Doctor Upasana, sister of the appellant,
the respondent returned on 25.12.1992.
16. The respondent has not denied this separation period but has rather
stated that the appellant had a cold attitude against the respondent and her
family members and always refused to attend any family functions. She has
also admitted that the appellant was reluctant in giving her money for
buying gifts and she was forced to arrange money from her parents for even
small token gifts to be given on such occasions. In her version, she has
explained that on Diwali she was expected to give gifts to her sister-in-law
and on her failure to do so, she was humiliated by the appellant’s family
members. Additionally, it was the mother-in-law who used to keep all the
gifts received by the respondent on many occasions and she was asked to
beg for them, which the respondent found disrespectful and insulting She
has further explained that she was dropped by the appellant to her parental
home, in the last week of December 1992, for no reason and admittedly with
the interference of the family members and Dr. Upasana, her sister-in-law,
the matter was sorted out by holding several reconciliatory meetings, after
which she returned to her matrimonial home.
17. The second separation happened in March, 1994, when the
respondent was pregnant with their first child. She deserted the appellant

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
and went to live with the parents, on the pretext of studying and being in
advanced pregnancy. Later, she refused to return to the house of the
appellant, despite his frequent visits and requests but the family of the
respondent kept complaining about appellant and his mother. According to
the appellant, a prank call was made to him on 02.05.1994, telling him that
the child has been born but when he along with family members reached the
hospital, he found none present. This act was only to torture the appellant.
18. Subsequently, one week later, the daughter was born on 09.05.1994
and the appellant went to the hospital, to plead with her to return to the
matrimonial home but he was not even allowed to touch his daughter for
three months during which time, the respondent remained in her parental
home when he was not even allowed to see the daughter. The efforts of
reconciliation were made by the appellant and was eventually respondent
was prevailed upon by the family members of the appellant, to return back
to the matrimonial home. The parents had even apologised for the sake of
peace and to bring back the respondent in the matrimonial home. She finally
returned to the matrimonial home along with the daughter, on 06.07.1994.
19. The respondent has not denied this second separation but has
explained that in March, 1994, about two months before the birth of elder
daughter, the appellant picked up the fight as the respondent wanted to
appear for her DNB Examination, which was not to the liking of the
appellant since he did not want her to rise in her career. He left the
respondent outside her parental home where she had to wait for hours for her
parents to return and let her in the house. Though, she has claimed that
despite being informed, appellant had come to see the daughter on her birth
in the hospital only for 15 minutes and not visited thereafter, but she has

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
admitted that on account of her examination, she stayed back to be able to
study properly as the atmosphere in the house of the appellant, was hostile
and not conducive for her to study. She has admitted that finally in August,
1994, i.e. after about six months, she returned back to the matrimonial home,
though according to her, it was only because of the efforts of her family that
she was able to re-join the appellant.
20. The third incident of separation happened in the year 1997, when the
respondent left on the occasion of her brother’s marriage. During this period
of separation, the appellant claimed that the respondent’s father along with
his relatives barged into their house and levelled wild allegations, with an
intention to tarnish and ruin the image of the appellant and his family
members. According to the appellant, she imposed a condition that she
would return only if a separate accommodation was arranged and the
appellant undertook not to visit his parental home again. The appellant
arranged a flat on rent in Geetanjali Apartments, I.P Extension, Delhi, to
facilitate the return of the respondent to the matrimonial home, but
according to him, the respondent refused to return since he was not able to
give the assurance that he would not visit his parents. These acts became
deleterious to the health and career of the petitioner.
21. The respondent, however, has claimed that it is not in her knowledge
that the appellant had arranged a flat in Geetanjali Apartments as she was
never informed about it. After several months of separation and on account
of conciliatory meetings between the family of the appellant and the
respondent, she returned to matrimonial home. The appellant had given false
re-assurances to the respondent that she would not face any adversity but
every time, the promise was broken and she was subjected to a life of

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
humiliation.
22. According to the appellant, the respondent deserted him for the
fourth time in December, 1999, when the appellant was offered a lucrative
job in Jalandhar, Punjab but he had an inclination of pursuing his career in
academics and was not inclined to take up the job. The respondent felt that it
was a better career prospect and got adamant that the appellant should take
up the job. Serious differences arose between the parties and the respondent
left the matrimonial home. While leaving, she abused the appellant’s father
as “dacoit in the clothes of a safedposh”, which his father could not take
lightly since he was a well-respected doctor in the community and the senior
of the family. The respondent left in rage soon after which the father of the
appellant suffered heart attack and had to be admitted in G.B. Pant Hospital,
where he underwent Angioplasty. The appellant has asserted that she failed
to visit them in the hospital.
23. The respondent has admitted about the job opportunity of the
appellant in Punjab and his disinclination to take it up. She, however, asserts
that she did not question his decision to pursue his career in academics. She
has asserted that it was the appellant used to pick fights on trivial issues at
the instigation of his mother and every time, she was told to go back to her
parental home as the matrimonial home did not belong to her. She admitted
that on one of such occasions, she along with her daughter was dropped at
her parental home, where she stayed for several months. She also admitted
that the father of the appellant, underwent Angioplasty in G.B. Pant Hospital
but asserted that on coming to know about the same, she along with her
parents, went to the hospital and remained there through out the time that the
procedure was carried out and left only after ensuring that the condition of

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
the father-in-law, was well. It is asserted that the facts have been twisted by
the appellant. This period of separation is also admitted by the respondent.
24. The fifth incident of separation happened in June, 2006. The
appellant has asserted that the respondent on her father’s advice, who was a
self-styled Astrologer and a Vastu specialist, insisted on the demolition of
the two toilets to be demolished. The appellant had opposed her suggestion
as there were only three toilets in the house and demolition of two would
have caused great inconvenience. After weeks of festering arguments, she
deserted the matrimonial home from June, 2006 to 04.03.2007, that is for
about ten months.
25. The respondent has admitted this period of separation though she has
claimed that she was dropped at her parents’ home by the appellant, at the
instigation of his mother, after picking up a massive fight with her and
hitting her badly. They both realised his mistake and the appellant arranged
counselling sessions with Doctor Sanjay Chugh, which were attended by
both the parties. She further admits that she eventually returned back home
after nine months of separation.
26. Again, for the sixth time, in February, 2011, the altercation happened
as according to the appellant, when the daughter questioned the respondent
for coming late in the night since she had to complete her project work, the
respondent flew into her rage and told her that she had to mind her own
business. On the same day, in the night at 8:00 p.m., the appellant had got a
frantic call from the respondent that she was going to end her life and
switched off her mobile. The appellant went into a frenzy as her mobile
phone was switched off and her family members had no information about
her whereabouts. In his state of panic, he went to Police Station Vivek

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
Vihar, Delhi and finally she was traced sleeping in her car, in Surajmal
Vihar, public park in a drunk state.
27. This incident is again admitted by the respondent, who had stated that
all her endeavours to save her marriage since beginning were snow balling
and she had reached her saturation point and could not bear the burden of
the marriage alone like taking care of the children during their illness, their
education and also to bear the brunt of endless stream of relatives aside from
her own tedious hospital duties and bearing the insult, abusive language and
physical violence and long periods of separation from the appellant. She was
getting into depression and it was in this unbearable moment after about 20
years of marriage, when she was unable to bear it any further, she chose to
go to the park and sit there aloof for some time. The appellant created a
scene and called the police only to prove her wrong. He was always looking
for situations where he could put down the respondent, despite all her efforts
to save their marriage.
28. According to the appellant, the final withdrawal from their
matrimonial relationship happened on 10.06.2011, when the respondent in
the absence of his parents, who had gone to the Vrindavan and appellant was
in hospital, she finally left him without any reason and notice. When the
appellant was performing his surgery, he received a frantic call from the
respondent, at about 3:00 p.m., insisting that he must return back home
urgently; leaving his surgery, he returned back home to find that the
respondent had called three Tempo vehicles and had packed all her
belongings and was sitting with her brother, sister and their children after
having had a sumptuous lunch while the children were dancing to T.V.
music. She informed the appellant that she was finally leaving the

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
matrimonial home and then conducted a ceremony in the nature of funeral
rites for the appellant, in the kitchen stating that he was dead for her. She
also tied a “Rakhi” on his hand and told him that henceforth, he was like a
brother to her and forbade him from even touching her ever. After
performing these bizarre ceremonies, she along with her family members
left the matrimonial home.
29. The respondent has also admitted that she finally left the matrimonial
home on 10.06.2011. However, she claimed that what transpired on the said
date, was the result of pre-planning by the appellant and his family
members. His parents intentionally went to Faridabad, to the mother-in-
law’s brother’s house along with the minor son, so that they could not be
blamed for the incidents. It is admitted that the respondent had called her
brother, sister and Bhabhi anticipating that there may be some problem
between her and the appellant. When he came back in the afternoon, he
made several complaints to her family members and used foulest language
against all of them, which she could not tolerate any further. The respondent
submits that he informed her that he wanted to lead a life of celibacy and
that he had no interest in her and had also said that he had better options
outside. According to the respondent, she was threatened to leave the
matrimonial home or else he would ensure that she could not continue to
live there. She asserted that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home
and she had to leave her daughter who was studying in Class 12th, behind as
her School was in the vicinity. This was admittedly the final day when the
respondent left the matrimonial home.
30. The appellant has further asserted that the respondent not only
deserted the matrimonial home but also left the children behind, who

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
suffered terribly because of the extra-ordinary behaviour of the respondent.
The daughter was preparing for her MBBS Entrance Examination, while the
son was of the tender age of 8 years. The acts of the respondent, not only
amounted to perpetuating cruelty towards the appellant, but were extremely
damaging for the health, education and mental well-being of the children,
who were extremely disturbed by such acts and unconscionable conduct of
the respondent.
31. The appellant has also asserted that he made an endeavour to resolve
the matters in December, 2011, but did not succeed. Admittedly, the parties
met at Oberoi Maidens, Civil Lines, New Delhi, but the respondent
conveyed her intention of divorce. The appellant has asserted that even
thereafter, he made several attempts of re-conciliation but were all met with
scornful rejection. In January, 2012, intervention was sought of two
intermediaries but it also proved unfruitful. Thereafter, in May 2013, the
appellant suffered serious spinal disorder and had to undergo spine surgery
twice, despite which the respondent did not show even an ounce of
sympathy or care towards his health.
32. The respondent, however, has asserted that on coming to know about
his medical condition, she had been in the hospital and had taken all the care
though she asserted that she never came to know about the second surgery.
33. The re-conciliatory attempts were also made in September, 2013,
through Dr. Sita Ram Aggarwal, a prominent physician of Ashok Vihar but
he was also not able to prevail. The appellant had thus, asserted that the
conduct of the respondent had reached a point of no return and had caused
him great physical, mental cruelty and agony. Despite three and a half years
of separation and of the respondent having deserted him and the children,

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
she failed to return despite all the conciliatory efforts.
34. The appellant filed the present Petition for divorce on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion.
35. The respondent in her response, has not denied that meetings were
held for re-conciliation but has claimed that she was surprised as the
appellant was arranging the meetings only to expedite the divorce and no
successful re-conciliation could take place inter se the parties.
36. The respondent had also asserted that the appellant always acted on
the instigation and advise of his mother, who used to unnecessarily interfere
in all the affairs of their matrimonial life. She asserted that the appellant’s
relatives used to frequently visit their house and it was the mother-in-law,
who was the decisive factor of who would stay and for how long, in their
home. Whenever she objected to any such decision, the mother-in-law
would insult and abuse her in front of all the family members. In all this, the
appellant maintained a cold attitude towards her. She claimed that all the
gifts that she received at the time of her marriage or subsequently, were
taken away by the mother-in-law, who gave it to the sister of appellant, who
had got married recently. She even subsequently took away all the gifts that
the respondent got. Despite such humiliating conduct of the mother-in-law,
she still suffered the humiliation and degradation and tried to settle in the
matrimonial home.
37. The respondent also alleged that the mother of the appellant was in
occult science while the father-in-law used to follow Vastu Shastra, which
is nothing but another aspect of occult science. The mother-in-law
somewhere in the year 1993, had an argument with the appellant and she
consumed minimal amount of Bygon just to scare the appellant that she was

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
committing suicide; such act of her was because of her temperamental
nature and her high ego. The appellant immediately returned from his
hospital and the mother-in-law was taken to the hospital, where she
recovered.
38. The respondent also claimed that the mother of the appellant had a
habit of pulling her hair, beat her chest, bang her head on the wall, to show
how dissatisfied she was, only to seek the attention of the appellant. The
respondent despite not being at fault, apologised only to satisfy her ego and
to maintain matrimonial harmony. The respondent also claimed that she was
made to do the entire household works, take care of the children alone, with
no support from the appellant. She however, forgot her own problems and
tried to fulfil her responsibilities towards the family; be it taking care of the
visitors and managing sickness of the children and family members. She
asserted that despite such atrocities meeted out to her over a period of time,
she suffered them all in a hope of saving her matrimonial life.
39. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on
06.04.2018, which are as under:-
" (1) Whether Appellant was subjected to physical and
mental cruelty in the hands of the Respondent? OPP
(2) Whether petition is maintainable due to various
legal obligation raised by the Respondent in
preliminary objections of written statement? OPR
(3) Whether Appellant is entitled to the decree of
divorce as prayed for? OPP
(4) Relief. ”
40. The appellant has examined himself as PW-1 and further examined
PW-2 Doctor Shyam Gupta, his father, PW-3 Mr. Dharmvir Gupta, his
paternal Uncle, PW-4 Dr. Narendra Kumar, Maternal Uncle, PW-5 Dr.

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
Sanjeev Joshi and PW-6 Dr. J.S. Bhogal, his friends and PW-7 Dr. Upasana
Gupta his sister. In support of his assertions, he also examined PW-8 Dr.
Vimal Kumar Nakra, to produce the medical records of treatment of his
mother at Deepak Memorial Hospital. PW-9 Mr. Kapil Panwar, Deputy
Manager with Fortis Hospital, to brought the employment record of the
appellant from 05.07.2004 to 24.05.2012. PW-10 Mr. Kuldeep Kumar,
brought the employment record from the G.B. Pant Hopsital from
13.05.1996 to 05.05.1999. PW-11 Mr. Vikas produced the discharge
summary of the appellant from Fortis Hospital, for the treatment undergone
by him in June, 2016. PW-12 Mr. Sunil Kimar brought the Discharge
Summary of Max Hospital, Dehradun of May and June, 2013. PW-13, the
Sole Proprietor of M/s Mazedaar Trips, brought the bills of cancellation of
tickets from Delhi to Jeneva and back from Zurich to Delhi. PW-14 Dr.
Amit Jindal proved the Discharge Summary and Bills of the treatment
undergone by the appellant at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. PW-15 UDC,
AIIMS brought the Appointment Letter of the appellant as Assistant
Professor Neuro Surgery on 28.03.2001.
41. The respondent examined herself as RW-1. She also examined RW-2
Mr. Manish Mittal, her brother in support of her assertions.
42. The learned Family Juge, took each incident separately and
minutely analysed them to conclude that the petitioner/appellant failed to
prove the allegations as made in the petition Thus, he concluded that there
was no cruelty committed by the respondent and that the respondent was not
responsible for desertion and it is rather the petitioner/appellant whose
conduct shows reasonable cause for the respondent to have left the
matrimonial home. The Divorce petition was accordingly, dismissed.

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
43. Aggrieved, by the denial of Divorce, the petitioner/appellant has
filed the present Appeal.
44. Submissions heard and record perused.
45. The canvas of the life of the parties, has been painted over a period of
about 20 years in myriad colours, hues and shades but unfortunately, the
picture which has finally emerged is not as beautiful/appealing/
prepossessing as may have been expected by both the parties when they
entered into the bond of matrimonial in the year 1992. In this life story of
the parties spanning over 20 years, there are bound to be ups and down as
they travelled together in their life but unfortunately, as has been brought
from the pleadings of both the parties, which essentially are not under
challenge, the both were not able to walk together in harmony and enjoy
their matrimonial bliss.
Cruelty:
46. Admittedly, in this period of about 19 years, the parties had
differences and there were seven acts of separation, each of about 3 to 10
months, which may add up to about 23-25 months in all. Each incident of
separation which led to separation, has not been denied by the respondent.
The narration of each incident as detailed above would show a somewhat
unreasonable attitude of the respondent.
47. First incident of Separation (October/November 1992 – 25.12.1992)
- The first incident of separation of two months in October, November,
1992, happened on the pretext of sufficient gifts not having been given to
the respondent’s siblings on the occasion of Diwali. While the respondent
has admitted that she had left the matrimonial home but has not been able to
give any cogent explanation.

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
48. Second incident of Separation (March 1994 – 06.07.1994) - The
second occasion of separation was in March, 1994, when she separated for
about four-five months. She at the time of her first pregnancy, chose to stay
at her parental home for this period solely on the pretext of preparing for her
DMV Examination. Again, no cogent explanation has ben forthcoming from
the respondent as to what prevented her from returning to the matrimonial
home, once her examination was over. A vague plea has been set-up by her
that the atmosphere in the appellant’s house was hostile and not conducive.
49. Third incident of Separation (Dec 1997 for few months)- The third
incident of separation happened in December, 1997. No explanation has
been given by the respondent except that there was undue interference of the
mother-in-law. She has admitted that re-conciliatory meetings were held and
she came to know that the appellant had arranged for a flat in Geetanjali
Apartments. According to the appellant, he was compelled to arrange a flat
only because the respondent had issues with his mother and was not willing
to return into the matrimonial home, where his mother was also residing.
Though, the respondent has denied that she ever insisted on separate
residence but the very fact that the appellant arranged a separate residence
lends credence and truthfulness to his claim that the respondent wanted an
accommodation separate from his mother.
50. The respondent in her entire Written Statement has in fact, blamed her
mother-in-law, for all the acts. It is her consistent stand that the mother-in-
law used to take away the money or instigate the appellant against her. She
herself has admitted that from time to time, she left the matrimonial home
on account of her discomfort in the matrimonial home. The respondent has
not been able to explain any cogent reason which made her feel stifled,

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
scuttled, suffocated/choked or restricted in her activities.
51. The fact that the respondent was not happy with the mother-in-law, is
also borne out from her own admission that while she and the appellant
along with her daughter, were posted in Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate
Medical Institute, Lucknow from January 1995 till May 1995, and had their
own independent abode in Lucknow, away from the matrimonial home,
those were the happiest days of her life. It is quite evident that the
respondent found it difficult to live with the matrimonial home along with
the mother-in-law and she had this feeling that mother-in-law was
controlling the son and interfering in their day-to-day affairs.
52. On a comprehensive reading of the entire defence set up by the
respondent, it is absolutely evident that because of the differences and the
issues with the mother-in-law, the respondent found it not easy to adjust in
the matrimonial home for some reasons or the other which became a cause
for her to leave the matrimonial home, time and again.
53. Fourth incident of Separation (December 1999- May 2000) - When
the parties separated again for about five months, in December, the dispute
was about the appellant not being inclined to take up a lucrative job in
Jalandhar but to continue his career in academics in Delhi. Again, there is no
cogent explanation forthcoming from respondent to have left the
matrimonial home during this period.
54. Fifth incident of Separation (June 2006 - 04.03.2007) –Again, the
parties separated in June 2006 for about ten months and apparently the issue
was that the respondent was unable to get the two toilets demolished, which
according to her were located in accordance with Vastu. No cogent
explanation for such long separations is forthcoming from the respondent

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
except a general complaint of the behaviour of the appellant or his acting on
the instigation of his mother.
55. Sixth Incident of Separation (February 2011 for a few months) -
Similarly, the sixth separation, the respondent herself has admitted that she
felt suffocated and stifled because of the home environment, which led to an
episode of depression and she went to the park to spend some time alone.
There is again nothing forthcoming to put the blame on the appellant to
show that he was acted with cruelty towards the respondent.
56. Final Act of Separation (10.06.2011) - Admittedly, the respondent
left on 10.06.2011. There is no denial that on that day, the parents of the
appellant were not at home and the appellant had gone to his hospital on
duty. The respondent also does not deny that she had called her brother,
sister and bhabhi to her house. Even if she is disputing that the children had
not been called but the fact remains that she herself states that she had a pre-
monition of some mishap for which reason she had called her own family
members with whom she left. Again, her own admission that she had
reached a point when she finally left on 10.06.2011, shows that she was not
happy with the home environment and left the house. It cannot be
overlooked that she left her two children behind with the appellant.
57. It is pertinent to refer to the testimony of the appellant, who has
deposed that on the said date, the respondent performed his last rites in the
kitchen and also tied a “Rakhi” on his hand while telling him that
henceforth, he would be like a brother to her and she abandoned the
relationship of husband and wife. The truthfulness of this can be inferred
from the explanation of the respondent that the appellant had a long time
back, taken a vow of celibacy and had also told her that she was not

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
interested in her and there was much opportunity available outside. The
explanation of the respondent again speaks volumes about her rejection and
abandonment of the matrimonial relations.
58. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh v.
Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, that a prolonged period of continuous
separation could lead to the irreparable breakdown of the matrimonial bond,
constituting mental cruelty and cessation or deprivation of cohabitation and
conjugal relationships, is an act of extreme cruelty.
59. The entire compendium of the evidence, as led by the respondent does
not bring forth any act of cruelty on the part of the appellant; rather the
entire evidence shows that the respondent was dissatisfied, unhappy with the
conduct of her mother which made her so unhappy in the matrimonial home
that she felt lack of space, control and respect in the house and she left the
matrimonial home. It is a clear case where the respondent left the
matrimonial home, from time to time, without there being any act or fault on
the part of the appellant. Such withdrawal by the respondent from time to
time, are acts of mental cruelty to which the appellant was subjected,
without any reason or justification.
60. The learned Family Judge has dissected each incident individually
and separately but life is not made up of isolated incidents. Each day
experience adds up to the next day and the entire period of matrimonial
relationship has to be considered as a whole. Instances of cruelty are not to
be taken in isolation, but cumulative effect of facts and circumstances
emerging from evidence, has to be taken into consideration to draw a fair
inference whether a spouse had been subjected to mental cruelty due to
conduct of other spouse as held by the Supreme Court in Parveen Mehta Vs.

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706. Similar observations have been made in
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 and Gurbux Singh v.
Harminder Kaur, (2010) 14 SCC 301, that while looking at the acts of
mental cruelty, the court must look at the married life as a whole and not
merely at a few isolated incidents.
61. We, thus, find that the learned Family Judge has erred in analysing the
life of the parties by taking a myopic view and by considering each incident
as an independent window, when in fact it is the journey of the parties
through their matrimonial life, which is determinative of their compatibility,
progressiveness and growth. We find that there is overwhelming evidence to
show that it is the respondent, who subjected the appellant to a life of
uncertainty with there being no settlement and mental peace in the
matrimonial life, despite 20 years of being spent together. It’s a case of
mental agony to the appellant entitling him to a divorce, on the ground
of cruelty under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
Desertion:
62. The appellant has also sought divorce on the ground of desertion. As
defined and explained by the Apex Court in the case of Bipinchandra Jai
Singhbai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176, the essential ingredients
for proving the ground of desertion are Factum deserdendi i.e. the factum of
separation and Animus deserendi i.e an intention to desert the respondent for
a permanent period. Additionally, the Desertion should have been without
any reasonable cause and for a period of more than two years before filling
of the petition.
63. In the present case, the Petition has been filed on 28.11.2014, after
about three and a half years of the respondent leaving the matrimonial home

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30
on 10.06.2011 and the acts of separation are admitted by both the parties.
The appellant has explained the incident of 10.06.2011 as referred above,
which again is reflective of an intent of abandonment and rejection of
matrimonial relationship.
64. Further, the evidence as of record proves that the respondent had no
intention of continuing in the matrimonial relationship. This is also evident
from the fact that no serious conciliatory efforts were made by her, to return
to matrimonial home. The efforts were made by the appellant through family
friends and relatives, but admittedly did not succeed. It is, therefore, proved
that the respondent has deserted the appellant without any reasonable
cause and is entitled to divorce, on the ground of desertion.
Conclusion:
65. We, from our above detailed discussion, hereby conclude that the
learned Family Judge, fell in error in dismissing the Divorce Petition. We
hereby set aside the impugned judgment dated 11.04.2022 and allow the
divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, under Section 13 (1) (i-
a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
66. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s) also stands
disposed of.
67. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)

JUDGE
APRIL 2, 2024/RS

By:VIKAS ARORA
14:09:30

Nbk02042024matfc1532022141443 532216

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nbk02042024matfc1532022141443 532216

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nbk02042024matfc1532022141443 532216

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 10th October, 2023

DR. VIKAS GUPTA ..... Appellant

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

Marriage, personified as the essence of togetherness, blooms on the

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

Signature Not Verified

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)

Signature Not Verified

You might also like