No wife can be compelled to live in matrimonial home with husband who keeps another lady with him: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently dismissed an appeal preferred by a husband, who instituted a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion against his wife. The Court said that no wife can be forced to cohabit in a situation where the man remarries and keeps another lady with him.

Justice Satyen Vaidya, while dismissing the appeal, observed, “respondent and her witnesses had been categoric in asserting the factum of husband having married another lady. The standard of proof required in matrimonial disputes is of preponderance of evidence… one of the witnesses of respondent i.e. RW-2, Sh. Sohan Lal, claimed himself to be the resident of same village to which husband belonged. He verified that husband had married another lady named lachhi. Statement of this witness on above account remained unchallenged… In the background of such material, the allegations of respondent against husband cannot be said to be without substance. Thus, respondent had justifiable ground to live separately as no wife can be forced to live in matrimonial home with husband keeping another lady with him.”

The Court added that Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Himachal Pradesh) Rules, 1982 require allegations of cruelty to be specified in the petition with particularity of time and place of the act, which was absent in the present case. Reliance was further placed on NG Dastane v. N Dastane (1975) in this regard.

Brief Background

The present appeal was moved by the husband against the final judgment and decree dated 19.06.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla, in HMA Petition No. 1-R/3 of 2006, whereby his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.

As per the husband, the behaviour of the respondent since the time of solemnization of marriage with the petitioner and his family members was not good. Subsequently, the respondent left the company of her husband leaving the custody of her minor children with him.

The Respondent was also stated to have been awarded maintenance at Rs.1,000/- per month in her claim against her husband, under Section 125 of CrPC.

On the contrary, the respondent submitted that she was turned out from her matrimonial home by her husband after seven years of marriage for the reason that he wanted to marry another lady, in fact he had married a lady named, Lachhi and brought her home. Since the respondent could not withstand such humiliation, she objected and as a result she was turned out from her matrimonial home.

It was further contended that the respondent had to leave her matrimonial home along with her minor children, who later were brought back by her husband after about five years.

The trial court framed the following two issues –

(i) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty?

(ii) Whether the respondent had deserted the petitioner?

Both of the aforesaid issues were answered in negative and the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Nain Sukh v. Seema Devi | FAO No. 437 of 2010