Failure To Fulfill Basic Financial Responsibilities By Husband Amounts To Cruelty, Desertion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the ex-parte dismissal of a divorce plea filed by a husband, observing that the husband failed to fulfil basic financial responsibilities which amounts to cruelty and desertion.

The husband alleged that wife has left her matrimonial house along with their child, which amounts to cruelty. However, the Court found it is husband who had deserted and committed cruelty by failing to maintain her and the child.

A division bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "The failure to fulfill basic financial responsibilities, contributes to the characterization of cruelty and desertion on the part of the appellant (husband)."

"Thus, by the common prudence, it can safely be concluded that the appellant-husband by filing the petition for divorce wanted to take the benefit of his own wrongs. Having himself failed to perform his matrimonial obligations, the appellant-husband cannot be allowed to plead that the trial Court ought to have granted him divorce because, the respondent-wife had been proceeded ex-parte," the bench opined.

The Court was hearing appeal of a husband against a Family Court's order whereby the divorce petition filed by the appellant- husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, had been dismissed ex-parte.

The husband filed a divorce plea before the Family Court alleging that the wife had left her matrimonial home along with the child. It was further averred that the husband came to know through some distant relative that the wife has gone abroad and her parents had refused to disclose her whereabouts.

Whereas, the wife pleaded that the husband had promised to take the respondent-wife to Italy where he was living, after marriage and again after the birth of the child in 2009, he visited India in 2011 and at that time as well, he had promised to take her to Italy. "But nothing of the sort was done."

However, the Family Court dismissed the plea, observing that, "The evidence led by the...husband proves otherwise and it was the husband, who had treated the respondent-wife with cruelty." 

After hearing the submissions, the Court found that there is "no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Family Court that the appellant-husband could not show anything from the record that he had paid any maintenance amount to the respondent- wife or their minor child."

The Court said that, "despite the respondent-wife having been proceeded as ex-parte during the proceedings, it is crucial to emphasise that no adverse inference can be automatically drawn against her regarding the allegations of cruelty and desertion."

In order to reach a logical conclusion, the Court can always consider the veracity of the allegations raised and examine the same on the basis of evidence led.

While upholding Family Court's order , the Court said, "The lack of provision made by the respondent-husband for the respondent's and the minor child's maintenance, including subsistence and day-to-day needs, raises serious concerns about his conduct in the wedlock."

Speaking for the bench Justice Singh said, "Moreover, the burden of proof rests entirely on the party that pleads cruelty and desertion. In the instant case, the appellant-husband has failed to substantiate the case with cogent and convincing evidence."

The Court highlighted that, "appellant has failed to demonstrate adherence to the respondent's wishes and also regarding his obligations towards both the respondent and the child. Specifically, the appellant neglected to make adequate arrangements for the respondent's travel to Italy with him, disregarding her desires and welfare of the child."

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea stating that, "It could not be shown that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration by the trial Court."

Title: XXX v. XXX

Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the appellant