17 July 2025 Divorce Law >> Family Law  

In an unfortunate case of Priya Aashish Bodas v/s Aashish Rajiv Bodas spanning over a decade, the High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a wife challenging a Family Court's decision to dissolve her marriage and grant divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The High Court upheld the Family Court's "meticulous appreciation of the evidence" and found no infirmity in its judgment.

The couple, married on December 12, 2013, in Pune, separated just over a year later on December 14, 2014, with no children from the marriage. Despite numerous mediation attempts, including efforts by various benches of the High Court, an amicable settlement proved elusive.

The legal saga began in 2015 when the parties initially filed a mutual divorce petition, which the wife later withdrew in July 2015. Following this, she filed a police complaint against her husband and his family. Subsequently, she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband, in turn, filed a counterclaim seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The Family Court dismissed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights and granted the husband's counterclaim for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA, leading to the wife's appeal to the High Court.

Allegations and Evidence:

The wife's allegations in her petition for restitution of conjugal rights included harassment by the husband's parents, being compelled to do all household work despite having servants, the husband demanding a divorce, and her "stridhan" (jewellery) being taken. She also claimed her consent to the mutual divorce petition was forced and that her in-laws' abuse led to her father's heart attack. She asserted a genuine desire to cohabit with her husband.

The husband countered these claims, alleging that the wife frequently left the house without informing him, constantly quarreled with him and his family (including his specially-abled sister), expressed regret over their marriage, refused physical relations after a few months, misbehaved with relatives and employees, and made false allegations of extra-marital affairs. He also presented evidence of his attempts to reconcile, including moving to a separate rented flat and inviting her, which she declined.

High Court's Findings:

The High Court affirmed the Family Court's findings, highlighting:

• Disproved Allegations of Domestic Work: The wife's claim of being forced into excessive housework was contradicted by her own admission of having multiple servants for various chores.
• Lack of Bona Fide Intent for Restitution: The High Court found no evidence to support the wife's claim that the husband withdrew from her society without reasonable excuse, a crucial element for restitution of conjugal rights. Her allegations against the husband and his family, coupled with her subsequent police complaint after withdrawing the mutual divorce consent, cast doubt on her genuine desire for reconciliation.
• Uncorroborated Claims: The wife failed to present any corroborating witnesses, including her mother, to support her allegations.
• Cruelty by the Wife: The High Court concurred with the Family Court that the husband's unchallenged and unrebutted testimony demonstrated acts of cruelty by the wife. Her behavior towards his employees and friends, her apathy towards his specially-abled sister, refusal of physical relations, and baseless allegations of extra-marital affairs were all considered acts of cruelty within the contextual meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Roopa Soni v. Kamal Narayan Soni.
• Opportunity for Cross-Examination: The High Court dismissed the wife's counsel's argument that she was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the husband, noting that the Family Court had provided ample chances, and the cross-examination was indeed completed.
• Irretrievable Breakdown: The Court noted that the marriage had effectively ceased to exist, with the parties living separately for over a decade and even attempting a mutual consent divorce in 2015.

Maintenance Claim Rejected:

Regarding the wife's prayer for Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as maintenance, the High Court rejected it, stating that no such prayer or application was made before the Family Court. Consequently, no issue was framed, and no evidence was led on this aspect. The Court stated that the wife has other effective remedies to pursue her claim for permanent alimony and maintenance in appropriate proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court found the Family Court's judgment to be "well-reasoned and based on the evidence correctly appreciated," dismissing the appeal.

Section 9, HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - 1955  

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955