Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act states the grounds for seeking divorce including cruelty, either physical or mental. In the present case (Manpreet Verma Versus Brij Verma), the Appellant-wife filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun wherein the petition under Section 13, 25, 26 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. The appeal was filed and heard by the Hon’ble Justice V.K. Bist and Hon’ble Justice Alok Singh of the Uttarakhand High Court.
It was stated in the averments that the Respondent-husband is a practising Advocate and was in the habit of seeking loans, some of which were in the name of the Appellant-wife. Due to the failure on part of the Respondent to repay the loans, the Appellant had to face embarrassment and also was beaten up and neglected by the Respondent, as contended. The Hon’ble Court made the following observations with regards to the conetntions raised, as follows:
“6. Taking of loan is neither an offence nor shameful act but failed to repay it may cause embarrassment, as lender comes to recover his loan by any means. It also maligns the reputation of a person is society. Appellant is a house wife. Respondent also took loan in the name of his wife / appellant and also made her guarantor. Appellant has no source of income and she was deserted by her husband. In such circumstance, it was very painful for her to live because she has no source of income but has to repay the loan.”
Whilst making the observations in the said appeal, the Hon’ble Court referred to the judgment given by the Apex Court in 8. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the Maya Devi Vs. Jagdish Prasad reported in AIR 2007 SC 1426 and further stated as follows:
“8. ……..it can safely be said that all the activities and conducts of the husband respondent are sufficient to establish the cruelty meted out by him to appellant. It is worthy to mention here that respondent is a practicing Advocate and he knows all consequences but he neither appeared before this Court nor appeared before Family Court, therefore, it appears that he is not interested in saving his marriage.”
The Court set aside the decree of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun and granted the decree to the Appellant-wife along with directing the Respondent-husband to return the Stridhan of the Appellant-wife.
Image Link: https://bit.ly/2IiI7qi
Order Link: Manpreet Verma Versus Brij Verma