Tripura High Court Upholds Divorce Decree: Appellant-Wife Failed to Comply with Restitution Order and Deserted Husband, Respondent-Husband Directed to Pay ₹7.5 Lakh One-Time Settlement for Minor Daughter’s Maintenance

Court’s Decision

The High Court of Tripura dismissed the appellant-wife’s appeal, confirming the Family Court’s decree of divorce granted under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The court found that the appellant-wife failed to comply with a prior order for restitution of conjugal rights.

The court also directed the respondent-husband to pay a one-time settlement of Rs. 7.5 lakh for the welfare of their minor daughter, covering her maintenance arrears and future expenses. The amount must be paid within three months. The court acknowledged the respondent’s remarriage as a factor that rendered reconciliation impractical, emphasizing the welfare of the minor child.

Facts

1. Marriage and Early Disputes:
   • The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married in 2014, following Hindu rites and customs. They had a daughter in 2015.
   • The husband alleged that the wife frequently visited her parental home without informing him, creating disputes. Despite moving to a rented house to accommodate her preferences, the appellant-wife continued the practice and stayed away for extended periods without consent.
2. Restitution of Conjugal Rights Order (2019):
   • The respondent-husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed in 2019. The Family Court directed the couple to restore their marital life within a month.
   • The appellant-wife claimed she attempted to comply but was obstructed by her in-laws. However, she did not pursue legal remedies or document these incidents effectively.
3. Divorce Proceedings (2020-2023):
   • The respondent filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court ruled in favor of the respondent, dissolving the marriage. The court found that the appellant-wife failed to comply with the restitution order and had abandoned the marital relationship.
4. Remarriage by the Respondent:
   • After the Family Court’s decree in September 2023, the respondent remarried in December 2023, complicating the appellant’s appeal.

Issues

1. Did the appellant-wife comply with the restitution of conjugal rights order?
2. Was the Family Court justified in granting a decree of divorce based on cruelty and desertion?
3. How does the respondent’s remarriage affect the appeal?

Petitioner’s (Appellant-Wife’s) Arguments

1. Compliance with Restitution Order:
   • The appellant argued that she attempted to return to her husband’s house but was prevented by her in-laws.
   • She contended that the Family Court overlooked these facts and wrongfully concluded that she deserted her husband.
2. Faulty Evidence in Divorce Decree:
   • The appellant challenged the Family Court’s reliance on witnesses, particularly PW3, whom she claimed was biased and unreliable.
3. Custody and Welfare:
   • The appellant emphasized the respondent’s failure to pay maintenance for their minor daughter, highlighting the child’s welfare.

Respondent’s (Husband’s) Arguments

1. Non-Compliance with Restitution Order:
   • The respondent argued that despite his repeated attempts to reconcile, the appellant failed to return to the matrimonial home.
   • He highlighted the absence of evidence supporting the appellant’s claim of obstruction by his family.
2. Cruelty and Desertion:
   • The respondent cited multiple instances of cruelty and desertion, emphasizing that the appellant’s behavior made marital life impossible.
3. Changed Circumstances:
   • The respondent contended that his remarriage and new family responsibilities rendered reconciliation impractical.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
   • These provisions address grounds of cruelty and desertion for divorce. The court held that the appellant’s refusal to return to the matrimonial home and her lack of efforts to restore the marriage constituted desertion and mental cruelty.
2. Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Section 9):
   • Non-compliance with a restitution order can be a valid ground for divorce. The court noted that the appellant did not take any concrete steps, such as informing the police or seeking legal support, to comply with the order.
3. Precedents on Remarriage:
   • The court relied on Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal (2018) and Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai (2020) to clarify that a second marriage during the pendency of an appeal is not void, but it affects the practicality of reconciliation.

Precedent Analysis

1. Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal (2018):
   • The court emphasized that an appeal against a divorce decree must be decided before the remarriage to avoid complications.
2. Arunoday Singh v. Lee Anne Elton:
   • Highlighted the limitation periods for filing appeals under the Family Courts Act.
3. Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai (2020):
   • Established that remarriage is lawful if an appeal against a divorce decree has been dismissed or is pending without stay orders.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Appellant’s Failure to Comply:
   • The court found no credible evidence supporting the appellant’s claim that she attempted to comply with the restitution order. Her lack of action undermined her argument.
2. Respondent’s Efforts:
   • The respondent demonstrated efforts to restore marital life, which were unsuccessful due to the appellant’s alleged indifference.
3. Child’s Welfare:
   • Recognizing the minor daughter’s financial needs, the court directed the respondent to pay a one-time settlement of Rs. 7.5 lakh.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the divorce decree, finding that the appellant-wife failed to comply with the restitution order and had deserted her husband. The court balanced the welfare of the minor daughter by awarding a financial settlement.

Implications

1. Reinforcement of Legal Compliance:
   • This judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with restitution orders in matrimonial disputes.
2. Timely Appeals:
   • The case highlights the significance of timely filing appeals to avoid legal and practical complications, especially in cases of remarriage.
3. Focus on Child Welfare:
   • The court prioritized the financial security of the minor daughter, ensuring her well-being through a substantial settlement.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Directs Registration of Unregistered Sale Deed for 213.27 Hectares of Land Despite Pending Special Leave Petition Before Supreme Court, Subject to Final Outcome