CASE TITLE:
Rishu Aggarwal Vs Mohit Goyal
DATE OF ORDER:
18th April, 2022
JUDGES:
Hon’ble Justice Vipin Sanghi & Hon’ble Justice Jasmeet Singh
PARTIES:
Appellant: Rishu Aggarwal
Respondent: Mohit Goyal
SUBJECT
The Court addressed the issue of whether the rejection of a marital relationship constitutes extreme hardship or depravity.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
BRIEF FACTS
- The denial of sex by one spouse to the other, or by both of them to each other, may undoubtedly constitute "hardship," but it cannot be deemed to be "extreme hardship," according to a bench led by Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh.
- The appeal filed by a wife contesting a Family Court judgment dismissing her divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of mutual consent was therefore dismissed. Their claim had been denied by the Family Court due to non-compliance with Section 14.
- Soon after the marriage, the parties' marital disagreements surfaced, and they began living separately, albeit in the same house. The wife afterward left her marital home and returned to her parents' home. The wife and husband had only recently married and had no child out of wedlock.
- As a result of the MOU, both parties filed a joint petition under Sec. 13B (1) of the Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, which included the terms of the settlement reached between them. The parties submitted the petition along with an application for leave to present the petition before the one-year cooling-off period from the date of marriage expired under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act.
- The Family Court refused to grant leave, believing that the exclusions set out in the proviso to section 14 of the Act had not been met and that the parties had failed to establish a case of extreme hardship or depravity. As a result, the parties' petition was dismissed because it was filed before the one-year deadline.
- During the hearings, a 2013 Kerala High Court judgment was cited, which said that divorce can be granted soon after marriage if there is an absolute lack of intercourse between the husband and wife.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether a married couple's refusal to engage in sexual activity, apparently due to temperamental differences, could be considered "extraordinary" enough to result in the dissolution of the marriage, without even waiting for the one-year term that allows for reconciliation?
- Whether the denial of conjugal relationship amounts to exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity?
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT
- The learned counsel of the appellant submitted that both the parties are young and of marriageable age and any delay in dissolving the marriage would lead to wastage of their precious time.
- The Counsel relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court Shivani Yadav Vs Amit Yadav.
- The Counsel also argued that if one party doesn’t want to maintain conjugal rights and the other party desires to maintain conjugal rights it would be tantamount to cruelty.
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS BY THE AMICUS
- Learned Amicus argued that the Act contains several provisions that particularly address divorce based on denial/lack of consummation or lack of conjugal relationship. If the Act clearly mentions these as grounds for divorce, a denial of such a request cannot be construed as a case of extraordinary depravity or hardship.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
The Court stated that depravity does not imply deprivation and that an incompatible marriage connection, or one with irreconcilable disagreements due to temporal or behavioral disparities, would not, in and of itself, result in either party creating extreme depravity to the other.
CONCLUSION
The Court concluded that, while deprivation of a marital relationship is a reason for divorce and constitutes cruelty, it cannot be deemed to constitute "extreme hardship."The Court dismissed the appellant's wife's argument that the prohibition of conjugal relations by both parties resulted in "extraordinary hardship or exceptional depravity" for one or both of them. As a result, the Court disagreed with the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt in Shivani Yadav v. Amit Yadav and the High Court of Kerala in Ratheesh M. v. Dhanya K. V.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
