Punjab and Haryana High Court grants divorce to man despite conviction in Section 498A case, denies alimony to wife

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted divorce in favour of a man despite his conviction in a case under Section 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said since the husband was convicted in the case lodged by the wife, her action constitutes cruelty and thus he would not be able to live 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 the woman had accused her in-laws of cruelty as well but 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, the Court while ruling in favour of the husband also said that the wife does not deserve any 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 the present case, the couple got married in 2004. A child was born to them in 2005. In 2007, a police case under various sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the husband on his wife’s complaint.The husband in 2009 sought divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The Family Court rejected the husband’s plea in 2018. Challenging the same before the High Court, the husband submitted that he and his wife have been living separately for the past 19 years. He argued that due to his conviction and sentence in the criminal case, it would not be possible for him to stay with his wife.However, the wife argued that she was still ready and willing to stay with him. .After considering the submissions, the Court at the outset questioned the woman’s contention and observed that if she wanted to stay with him, she could have filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and not a criminal case against the husband. “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..The Court also observed that the Family Court had failed to comply with the mandatory provision for attempting reconciliation between the couple..In the judgment, the High Court recorded that it had made an endeavour to resolve the issue between the parties. However, it noted that the husband was unwilling to stay with his wife since he was convicted in the case lodged by her and also underwent sentence in that case.The Court then proceeded to deal with the matter on merits and said that when there was no scope and benefit in trying to keep the parties together and it would be beneficial to both the parties and the children that they part ways.“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..Besides reasoning that the wife’s action of lodging FIR against him was cruelty, the Court also said the parties have been living separately for about 19 years with no attempt at reconciliation or cohabitation by either party.This conclusively establishes that the marriage has irrevocably broken down, it said.Thus, it dissolved the marriage..Though the Court denied permanent alimony to the woman, it directed the man to pay a monthly amount of ₹10,000 to 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.