Forcing Couple To Live Together After Being Separated For 17 Yrs Is 'Fiction Supported By Legal Tie', Amounts To Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dissolved the marriage of a couple who were living separately for the last 17 years, observing that compelling them to live together would be fiction supported by a legal tie and amounts to cruelty.

 Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "the parties, who have been living separately since 2008, if compelled to live together, would become a fiction supported by a legal tie and it would show scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. This, in itself would amount to mental cruelty to born the parties."

The Court was hearing a plea challenging the Family Court's order whereby the petition for divorce filed by the husband was dismissed. The couple was married in 2007 and filed divorce in 2014. 

In his divorce petition, the appellant-husband had specifically pleaded that the parties had been living separately since 2008. In her written statement, the respondent- wife did not counter the said assertion, meaning thereby that the parties have been residing separately for nearly about 17 years.

During the period of 17 years, there has been no resumption of their matrimonial ties.

Reliance was placed on Naveen Kohli v. Neetu Kohli, [2006 (4) SCC 558], the Apex Court was considering a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The wife had been living separately for a long time, but did not want divorce by mutual consent only to make life of her husband miserable.

The Apex Court said that, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life.

In the present case, the Court noted that there is nothing on record to indicate that since the date of filing of the divorce petition the respondent -wife had made any effort to join his company and/or had filed any petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

Consequently, the bench held that, "the marriage between the parties has become unworkable and has reached the stage of beyond repair and if the parties are called upon to stay together, it may lead to mental cruelty to both of them."

Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Title: SXXXXX v. RXXXXX