Allowed

Amit Kumar Maheria v. Rashmi

Delhi HC2 Sept 2024MAT.APP.(F.C.)/173/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the Family Court's dismissal of a divorce petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court observed that the parties had not lived together since 2017 and the respondent abetted the proceedings, concluding the marriage was beyond repair.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed and the marriage between the parties was declared dissolved.

Amit Kumar Maheria Vs Rashmi — Maintenance and Alimony | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 173/2019

¶4

AMIT KUMAR MAHERIA .....Appellant Through: Mr Parminder Singh Goindi, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

RASHMI .....Respondent

¶7

Through: None

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶9

O R D E R % 02.09.2024

¶10

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶11

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2019.

¶12

1.1 Via the impugned judgment, the family court has dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, ‘1955 Act’).

¶13

The record shows that notice in the divorce petition was issued. Since the respondent did not enter appearance despite service, she was proceeded ex parte on 19.02.2018.

¶14

The appellant, in support of his assertions made in the divorce petition, had filed an affidavit-of-evidence. The family court, however, concluded that the appellant was not able to prove the allegations and assertions made in the divorce petition.

¶15

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 173/2019

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 02:37:52

¶18

The case set up by the appellant concerning cruelty against the respondent was pivoted on allegations of extramarital affairs with several persons including one, Mr Rahul.

¶19

To be noted, the appellant in support of his case, apart from the affidavit-of-evidence, had placed on record copies of two (02) documents i.e., a handwritten letter dated 03.09.2017 addressed to the SHO, Mehrauli Police Station and an affidavit of even date, which is broadly indicative of the fact that the respondent had made a statement to the effect that she had left the matrimonial house of her own free will without undue influence or coercion. 5.1 These documents were not taken into account as the appellant was unable to prove the same. The appellant did not summon the official witness which was, perhaps, one of the ways of proving the documents.

¶20

That said, the record discloses that from the wedlock, the couple has two (02) children. A girl child was born on 10.12.2007, while the second child, a boy, was born on 30.07.2012.

¶21

6.1 We are told that during the pendency of the appeal, the boy child has passed away. Therefore, as matter stands today, the girl child is in the custody of the appellant.

¶22

The respondent, as noted above, did not participate in the proceedings before the family court.

¶23

7.1 The position is not different in the instant appeal as well. The respondent was proceeded ex parte by the coordinate bench on 21.03.2022.

¶24

Thus, we are left with a situation where couple has not stayed together since January, 2017.

¶25

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 173/2019

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

¶28

The respondent does not seem to be interested in contesting the proceedings initiated by the appellant for divorce.

¶29

Given this position, it is quite obvious that the marriage between the couple is beyond repair. Therefore, this aspect, thus, falls within the ambit of cruelty i.e., Section 13(1)(ia) of the 1955 Act. [See Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511]

¶30

Having regard to the aforesaid position, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree.

¶31

The marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved.

¶32

The Registry will prepare a decree sheet accordingly.

¶33

Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶34

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶35

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶36

SEPTEMBER 2, 2024 /ds Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶37

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 173/2019

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

Amit Kumar Maheria v. Rashmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Maheria v. Rashmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Vs Smt. Jyoti Yadav

Punkajj Sharma Vs Himani Sharma

Dheeraj Kapoor Vs Smt. Deepika

Tapan Gautam Vs Natasha Vyas

Kailash Chandra Soni Vs Mayank Soni & Anr. & Ors.

Rahul Kulshreshtha Vs Ruchi Sinha

Tejinder Singh Vs Beverley Singh

Tejinder Singh Vs Beverley Singh

Sh. Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri Vs Union of India & Ors.

Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri Vs Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar

Shashank Tiwari & Anr. Vs Rani Sharma & Anr.

Dreamsquare Hospitality LLP Vs Pradeep Sharan & Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Meena Tanwar

M/S Nikunj Woods Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Krishna Steel Furniture and Anr.