Deepak Kumar Vs Sukhwinder Kaur — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Deepak Kumar v. Sukhwinder Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2025FAO-M/77/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mental cruelty; parties living separately since 2015; compelled cohabitation as 'fiction supported by a legal tie'; divorce petition by appellant-husband; decree of learned Family Court defended by respondent-wife; adamant conduct in mediation; dead relationship; no effort to rejoin matrimonial home; no petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights; frustration of claim; protracted litigation.

What did the court decide?

Examining the facts in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited earlier, parties living separately since 2015, if compelled to live together, would become a fiction supported by a legal tie, showing scant regard for their feelings and emotions; this in itself amounts to mental cruelty to both parties. ¶17

What the court decided

AI extract

Issue for consideration

Whether the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife, who have been living separately since 2015, should stand dissolved on the ground that compelling them to live together would itself amount to mental cruelty, notwithstanding the respondent-wife's defence of the Family Court decree.

Court's answer

Examining the facts in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited earlier, parties living separately since 2015, if compelled to live together, would become a fiction supported by a legal tie, showing scant regard for their feelings and emotions; this in itself amounts to mental cruelty to both parties.

Ratio / Principle

While the wife defends the Family Court judgment and decree, her conduct during mediation was adamant; common prudence affords no gain to the respondent-wife in keeping the dead relationship alive.

Key takeaways

Since the filing of the divorce petition by the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife made no effort to join his company or return to the matrimonial home, nor did she seek restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act; her conduct shows she is not concerned with the appellant-husband's well-being and maintenance.ratio¶19
The only aim of the respondent-wife appears to be to frustrate the appellant-husband's claim and keep him engaged in protracted litigation.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Fragmentary judgment (paragraphs 17-19 only; paragraphs 1-16 and the operative portion are not present in the supplied text). In proceedings in which the respondent-wife is defending the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court on the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband, the court reasoned that parties living separately since 2015, if compelled to live together, would become 'a fiction supported by a legal tie', showing scant regard for their feelings and emotions, and that this would itself amount to mental cruelty to both parties. The court further observed that although the wife defended the decree, her conduct in mediation was adamant, that she made no effort since the filing of the divorce petition to rejoin the matrimonial home or to seek restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act, and that her only apparent aim was to frustrate the husband's claim and prolong the litigation. Court, bench, case number, citations of the Supreme Court precedents relied upon, and the final operative order are not available in the provided text; the date shown (06.02.2025) is taken from the attestation stamp.