The Delhi High Court in the case X v. Y observed and has stated that the claim of the wife for separate residence under justified circumstances cannot be term as an act of cruelty to the husband.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in the case observed and has stated that there may be myriad situations such as differences with the in-laws, her own work commitments or difference of the opinion which may make her demand for separate accommodation justified for survival of the marriage. Thus, where there exist certain justifiable reasons, the claim for the separate residence per se cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.
The court in the case observed and has stated that where the husband has chosen to be in a joint family with his parents, the husband cannot be forced to separate from the first day of his marriage, thus, merely on the whims of his wife.
The court stated that the person has equal responsibility towards his parents and his spouse and the same requires a delicate balance to be maintained between the two.
The court while dismissing the appeal of the wife wherein challenging the order of family court (1) (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Therefore, the parties got married in January 2012, and they got separated just after three months of their marriage.
The court while upholding the order of the family court stated that not only did the marriage between the parties subsist for barely three months but failed completely on account of deprivation of conjugal rights.
It has also been claimed by the Husband before the court that he was being subjected to cruelty by the wife as she refused to settle in the matrimonial home where his parents were residing with him and that she, since beginning, started making a demand for separate accommodation.
The bench in the case observed and has ruled that the wife was not been able to justify the claim of her for separate residence.
Therefore, the court stated that the matrimonial relationship needs nurturing, care, compassion, cooperation, and the adjustments before it can bloom into a full conjugal relationship. Thus, here being the case where barely in three months the appellant decided to walk out of the matrimonial home and none of the grounds as claimed by her have been proved by any evidence whatsoever.
Adding to it, the court stated that the wife withdrew from the husband’s company after three months of marriage without any reason and that she had no intention of resuming back her relationship with him.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
The counsel, Advocates, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Durgesh Gupta, Mr. Kamal Pundir, Mr. Kshitiz Mudgal & Ms. Anshul Rajora appeared for the appellant.
The counsel, Advocate Mr. Rashid Hashmi represented the Respondent.