Delhi High Court Rejects Husband's Divorce Plea Over Claim He Was Under Sedative Influence During Marriage
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a man's appeal seeking dissolution of his marriage, after he claimed that his marriage was invalid as he was under the influence of a sedative substance when the marriage ceremonies were performed way back in 2008.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that the husband's claim, can at the most, attract Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which declares the marriage being voidable if the consent was obtained by force or fraud, etc., for which a petition for annulment was to be presented within one year of discovery of fraud.
The Court said that it was an admitted position that the dispute about the validity of marriage was challenged by the husband in the petition filed under Section 9 of the HMA by the wife, which was decided against him and had attained finality.
The Court dismissed the husband's appeal challenging a Family Court judgment dismissing his divorce petition under Sections 13(1A) and 13(1)(ib) of the HMA.
The parties had married on February 20, 2008, at an Arya Samaj Mandir. No child was born from the marriage. Following marital discord, the wife filed a complaint under Section 498A of IPC in June 2008 and subsequently instituted proceedings under Section 9 of HMA seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
The wife's restitution petition was allowed in September 2013. However, the parties did not resume cohabitation. In 2016, the husband approached the Family Court seeking divorce, contending, among other things, that there had been no restitution of conjugal rights for the requisite period.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that the wife had remained separate despite obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and that he was therefore entitled to divorce under Section 13(1A) of HMA.
Dismissing his plea, the Court said that the record of the Family Court showed that it was the husband who had made no efforts to reconcile the matter before filing the divorce petition or even after getting the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
It also noted that the wife who was always willing to join his company and to withdraw all the pending litigations between them.
“In the present case also, the respondent (wife) attempted to execute the decree which was frustrated on refusal of appellant (husband) to reside with the respondent (wife) and his admission that he never tried to bring back his wife and rather even denying his marriage with the respondent, despite the court decree passed against him, is squarely covered within the meaning of word “wrong” under Section 23(1A) of the HMA,” the Court said.
It added that the husband had taken inconsistent positions by disputing the existence and validity of the marriage while simultaneously seeking dissolution of the same marriage under the HMA.
“On one hand, he disputed the validity of the marriage itself and on the other hand, he sought dissolution of the very same marriage,” the Bench observed, holding that a party cannot “approbate and reprobate simultaneously.”
“A party cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously, i.e., disputing the factum of marriage while simultaneously praying for its dissolution under the HMA. Therefore, the said conduct of the appellant evidently falls in the category of 'own wrong' and is sufficient to attract the provision of Section 23(1)(a) HMA. Whereas, no positive act has been committed by the respondent to create a situation so as to make it impossible for the appellant to resume cohabitation,” the Court observed.
The Bench also rejected the husband's reliance on the fact that he had been regularly paying Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.
It held that payment of maintenance was a statutory obligation and, by itself, could not entitle a spouse to a decree of divorce.
Holding that there was no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the Family Court's decision, the Bench dismissed the husband's appeal.
Title: X v. Y