Date of order:
24 June 2021
Judge:
Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan
Parties:
Prakashchandra Joshi (Appellant)
Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi and others (Respondent)
Subject
In this case, the appellant filed an appeal in the high court seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The question raised before the court was whether a wife wishing to stay abroad for a career would not amount to cruelty and desertion.
Overview
- The couple got married in 2004 after having spent eight years in courtship.
- The appellant (Husband) shifted to Canada in 2003. Later respondent (wife) joined him on a spousal visa.
- In 2009, the appellant had met with a car accident, after which respondent nursed him back to health.
- The following year they had their first child. In addition, in 2010, Canada had a recession, because of which the appellant lost his job, putting the respondent in a financial bind.
- Appellant started suffering from back and shoulder pain and a skin allergy. Therefore, they then decided to return to India.
- A month after their return to India, the appellant alleged that the respondent left for her parent’s house and later expressed the desire to move back to Canada with her son.
- The appellant said he began job hunting, hoping his wife would return. However, she refused.
- The appellant then approached the court for restitution of conjugal right, but the respondent failed to appear in the proceedings. So he eventually filed for divorce.
- The divorce case was decided ex parte and dismissed. The husband's pleas and evidence were vague, according to the Family Court judge.
Judgment Analysis
- Even at the High Court, the petition was uncontested but, the Court did not grant relief to the appellant.
- The court also stated that there were no medical records to show that the appellant was unable to join the respondent due to health issues.
- The court observed that the respondent’s desire to move to Canada was related to the fact that the appellant "had initially decided to settle abroad,”. The respondent's wish cannot be characterized as selfish, nor can her action be described as justifiable.
- According to the HC, the couple had mutually chosen to relocate to Canada for better possibilities.
- The court refused to trust the appellant's claims that he had visited Canada twice, but the respondent refused to meet him and only permitted him to meet his son when he agreed not to inform the child that he was the father.
- The bench concluded that the couple's marriage has not deteriorated to the point where it is permanently broken, especially given their son is still young and could serve as a bridge to bring them back together.
Conclusion
Cruelty means to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the person that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the other person. In the above case, there was no reasonable apprehension that the respondent would harm or injure the petitioner. The appellant had initially decided to settle abroad so the respondent's wish to live abroad cannot amount to desertion.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
