SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vimal Tyagi vs Doli Tyagi on 28 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Delhi High Court

Vimal Tyagi vs Doli Tyagi on 28 February, 2024

Author: Neena Bansal Krishna

Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 04th October, 2023
% Pronounced on: 28th February, 2024

+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022

VIMAL TYAGI ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Ms. Saloni
Mahajan Mr. Rishabh Kumar,
Advocates with appellant in person.
versus

DOLI TYAGI ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Priyanshu Yadav, Advocate with
respondent in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1984”) has been filed on behalf of the
appellant/husband assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 06.04.2022 vide
which the Divorce Petition under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA, 1955”) filed on behalf of the
appellant/husband, has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief as narrated by the appellant/husband are that the
appellant/husband got married to the respondent/wife according to the Hindu

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 1 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
customs and rites on 16.04.2016 at Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Thereafter, parties lived together as husband and wife with the parents,
brother and sister of the appellant/husband at the matrimonial home in
District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. One son was born from their wedlock on
29.07.2017.

3. The appellant/husband had submitted that he was doing a job as an
Operational Manager in Aarogya Pathcare Lab, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. After
15 days of his marriage, he returned to Delhi where he has been residing
with his friend Sumit in a rented accommodation at Village Tihar, Delhi.

4. The respondent/wife and the family members of the
appellant/husband used to call him on alternate days and he used to visit
them for 2-3 days in a month to spend time with the respondent/wife as well
as his family members.

5. The appellant/husband has alleged that after few months of marriage,
the respondent/wife started picking fights with his family members on the
pretext that she did not want to take care of the mother of the
appellant/husband who was suffering from breast cancer and had undergone
surgery before the marriage of the parties. The appellant/husband
approached the family members of the respondent/wife to seek support, but
they threatened him that they would come to his house and give beatings to
him as well as his family members.

6. The appellant/husband has further contended that the respondent/wife
was of quarrelsome lady and talked rudely because of which the atmosphere
in his parental home became strained.

7. In October, 2016, the appellant/husband brought respondent/wife to
Delhi to stay temporarily with him, while his friend Sumit was requested to

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 2 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
shift to his relative’s house. However, the behaviour of the respondent/wife
did not change and she continued to mentally harass the appellant/husband
because of which he was unable to discharge his job properly. When the
appellant/husband once again sought help of his father-in-law to convince
the respondent/wife to change her behaviour, he came up with a demand for
transfer of his parent’s agricultural land in the name of the respondent/wife,
instead of making the respondent/wife understand her mistakes. The
respondent/wife told the appellant/husband that she had married to him only
with an intent to grab his parental property. Even from her first husband, she
had taken Rs. 10,00,000/- at the time of divorce.

8. The appellant/husband has claimed that when his parents refused to
transfer the agricultural land in the name of respondent/wife, the
respondent/wife became angry and went to reside at the matrimonial home
at Hapur, Uttar Pradesh.

9. It is asserted that essentially the bone of contention between the
parties was the transfer of agricultural land and when the demands of the
respondent/wife were not met, she continued with her harassment.

10. In March, 2019, the respondent/wife attempted to throttle the neck of
the appellant/husband’s mother who somehow managed to escape.
Thereafter, on 26.07.2019, the respondent/wife intentionally pushed the
mother of the appellant/husband down the stairs thereby injuring her
severely. Since then, the appellant/husband has constantly been
apprehensive about the safety of his family members.

11. The appellant/husband has further asserted that on 13.08.2019, the
respondent/wife tried to kill herself and called the Police to level false
allegations against him and his family members. However, with the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 3 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
intervention of the neighbours who apprised the Police of the true facts, the
respondent/wife was warned not to repeat such acts. The respondent/wife
apologised before the Police Officials and promised to live peacefully in
future and no action was taken by them.

12. On 14.08.2019, the respondent/wife called her parents, brother and
close relatives to the matrimonial home who broke all the household articles
and gave beatings to the family members of the appellant/husband. They
also again telephonically extended threats to the appellant/husband to
transfer the agricultural land in the name of respondent/wife.

13. The appellant/husband has asserted that one son was born on
29.10.2017, but the respondent/wife neglected the child. The
respondent/wife in order to pressurise the family members of the
appellant/husband to transfer the property, even extended threats to kill the
son. On 16.08.2019, the appellant/husband brought the respondent and the
child to Delhi as he feared for the life of his son. The respondent/wife
brought a knife from kitchen and tried to kill the son only to pressurise him
for transfer of agricultural land. However, he was somehow able to save his
son.

14. On 26.08.2019, while the appellant/husband had gone for work, the
parents, brother and other relatives of the respondent/wife came to his
residence in Delhi and took away the respondent/wife and the son with
them. The respondent/wife also took away all her belongings and jewellery
without informing the appellant/husband. When the appellant/husband
returned to his house and found them missing, he tried to contact the
respondent/wife telephonically, but she did not respond. The
appellant/husband contacted the father-in-law who also threatened him not

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 4 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
to visit his residence till the agricultural land is transferred in the name of
the respondent/wife.

15. The appellant/husband has further asserted that on the next day i.e.,
27.08.2019, the respondent/wife forcibly entered the matrimonial home at
Hapur, Uttar Pradesh and threatened to continue to reside there till the
agricultural land was transferred in her name. The appellant/husband went to
lodge a complaint at the Police Station, but he was advised to file a Civil
Suit. Left with no option, the appellant/husband made a Complaint dated
01.0.2019 to SHO Police Station, Hari Nagar, Delhi, but no action had been
taken pursuant thereto.

16. The appellant/husband claimed that he has a fear of safety of his life,
limb and property and to continue to live with the respondent/wife would
cause him extreme physical and mental torture. Hence, the
appellant/husband sought the divorce on the ground of cruelty.

17. The respondent/wife was duly served through registered cover which
was received back with the report of the refusal. The respondent/wife was
also served through Speed Post at her address at Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh, but she failed to appear despite service being effected.
Consequently, The respondent/wife was proceeded ex parte vide Order
dated 18.12.2019.

18. The appellant/husband examined himself as PW1 and also examined
PW2/Sumit Kumar Chaudhary and PW3/Manish Sharma, his friends to
corroborate his testimony.

19. The learned Family Judge disbelieved the testimony of the
appellant/husband that there were constant demands and threats for transfer
of agricultural land in favour of the respondent/wife because no details and

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 5 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
documents of the agricultural land were filed or proved by the
appellant/husband. The testimony of PW2/Sumit Kumar Chaudhary and
PW3/Manish Sharma (friends of the appellant) was held to not further the
cause of the appellant/husband since they were not witness to the
matrimonial discord and had no personal knowledge of the incidents as
relied upon by the appellant/husband. Even the Complaint dated 01.09.2019,
Ex.PW1/4 made to the SHO Police Station, Hari Nagar, Delhi by the
appellant/husband had not been followed. Thus, it was held that the
appellant/husband was unable to prove the cruelty on the part of the
respondent/wife and the divorce petition was dismissed.

20. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated
06.04.2022, the present Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/husband.

21. Along with the Appeal, he had filed an Application No. CM APPL.
25481/2022 under Section 151 read with
Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 to place the various documents on record which
included the certified copy of the Judgment dated 18.11.2015 vide which the
respondent/wife was granted divorce by Mutual Consent from her first
husband; the Revenue Record of the agricultural land of the father of the
appellant/husband located at their native village in the state of Uttar Pradesh;
and the copies of the complaints and of the orders passed by the Family
Court in the Civil Suit No. CS 11/2019 titled
Vimal Tyagi vs. Doli Tyagi
Ors. which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court. The application was allowed and the documents were
permitted to be placed on record, vide Order dated 21.08.2023.

22. Submissions heard from the counsels for the parties and the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 6 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
documents as well as the evidence perused.

23. At the outset, the respondent/wife in the present Appeal, though had
appeared on various dates, did not challenge the proceedings before the
Family Court nor did file a reply to the grounds on which the present Appeal
has been filed. The sole challenge was to C.M. No. 24581/2022 for
production of the additional documents pertaining to the agricultural land.

24. Admittedly, the parties got married on 16.04.2016 and one son was
born from their wedlock on 29.07.2017.

25. The case of the appellant/husband is not controverted by the
respondent/wife as she neither appeared before the Family Court on services
of the summons nor did she contest the Divorce petition filed by the
appellant/husband.

26. The appellant/husband has set up a case that after the marriage of the
parties, the appellant/husband came to Delhi where he was gainfully
employed and was staying in a rented accommodation at Village Tihar,
Delhi with his friend Sumit Kumar Chaudhary, PW2, while the respondent
continued to stay in the matrimonial home at Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. There is
no challenge whatsoever that while the appellant/husband continued to
reside in Delhi on account of his job exigency, the respondent/wife
throughout continued to stay at the matrimonial home at Hapur, Uttar
Pradesh.

27. It is not disputed that she had come to stay in the rented
accommodation at Village Tihar, Delhi of the appellant/husband for a short
period in October, 2016. The appellant/husband’s friend Sumit Kumar
Chaudhary PW2 shifted to his relative’s house in Najafgarh, Delhi for a few
days. The consistent claim of the appellant/husband in his Divorce Petition

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 7 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
as well as in his testimony was that right from the inception of marriage, the
respondent/wife had the sole interest in the properties of the father of the
appellant/husband which she insisted to transfer in her name. The
respondent/wife harassed the appellant/husband to an extent that he was
compelled to seek the intervention of the parents and family members of the
respondent/wife, but they also did not support him. Rather, they joined her
in telling the appellant/husband to get the agricultural land of his parents
transferred in her name. The appellant/husband had deposed that the
respondent/wife even conveyed to him that she had taken Rs. 10,00,000/-
from her first husband at the time of divorce and that she had also married to
appellant/husband with the sole objective of getting the agricultural property
of his parents. Since, the appellant/husband refused to get the agricultural
land of his parents transferred in her name, the respondent/wife became
angry and continued to harass the family of the appellant in the matrimonial
home. The appellant/husband has further deposed that because of this
constant pressure, he was not able to focus on his job.

28. It is further deposed by the appellant/husband that in May, 2017, the
respondent/wife’s brother came to his parental home in Hapur, Uttar Pradesh
and again repeated the demand for transfer of agricultural land in the name
of the respondent/wife or else they were threatened to be implicated in the
false dowry cases. The appellant/husband claimed that he continued to
tolerate such threats from the respondent/wife and her family members in a
hope that her behaviour would change after the birth of the child and the
things would get settled. However, persistent demands of the
respondent/wife continued. The harassment on this account was continued
by the parents, brothers, cousins of the respondent/wife who visited the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 8 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
parental home of the appellant/husband at Hapur, Uttar Pradesh in August,
2018 and threatened and repeated the demand for transfer of land and also
threatened to kill the son of the appellant/husband if the same was not done
within a few days.

29. In March, 2019, the respondent/wife attempted to throttle the mother
of the appellant/husband, though she with difficulty was able to save herself.
The respondent/wife’s pressure tactics continued when on 13.08.2019, she
attempted to commit suicide and the Police was called before which she
again repeated her false allegations. However, the Police, with the
intervention of the neighbours, left with a warning to the respondent/wife
not to repeat such acts in future.

30. The appellant/husband has further narrated the incident of 14.08.2019
when the parents, brother and close relatives came to matrimonial home at
Hapur, Uttar Pradesh on the asking of the respondent/wife and not only gave
beatings to the family members of the appellant/husband but also repeated
their threat of implication in case the transfer of agricultural land is not
made. They even broke the household articles and gave beatings to the
family of the appellant/husband.

31. The appellant/husband getting scared of threats being regularly
extended to him, brought the respondent/wife and the child to Delhi on
16.08.2019, but there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent/wife
who insisted on her demands. The respondent/wife brought a knife from the
kitchen and tried to kill their son in front of the appellant/husband.

32. Therefore, from the consistent, unchallenged and unrebutted
testimony of the appellant/husband, it emerges that the respondent/wife
essentially stayed in the matrimonial home at Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, while

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 9 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
the appellant/husband resided at Village Tihar, Delhi, except for a few days,
when the respondent/wife joined him at Delhi, thereafter, she continued to
be in the matrimonial home at Hapur, Uttar Pradesh.

33. There is not an iota of evidence led by the respondent/wife to explain
her reason for continuing to be in the matrimonial home, separate from
appellant/husband. In this backdrop, the testimony of the appellant/husband
that the sole interest of the respondent/wife to get married with the
appellant/husband was only to get the agricultural land owned by his
parents, cannot be challenged or disbelieved.

34. The appellant/husband has further deposed that he had brought the
respondent/wife and the son who had come to reside with him to Delhi.
However, on 16.08.2019 they left the house of the appellant/husband behind
his back when he had gone to office on 26.08.2019 by calling her parents,
brother and other relatives at the residence. They all came and took away the
respondent/wife and the son.

35. It is further deposed that the respondent/wife also took away her
jewellery and belongings without informing the appellant/husband. The
appellant/husband when on return from his, unlocked the house, he found
that both respondent/wife and the child missing. The appellant/husband
called the respondent/wife telephonically, but the respondent/wife did not
respond any of the telephonic calls. The appellant/husband even tried to find
whereabouts of the respondent/wife by calling the father of the
respondent/wife, but the appellant/husband was threatened not to visit the
parental house of the respondent/wife till the agricultural land was
transferred in her name.

36. Again, there is no rebuttal of this aspect of the respondent/wife having

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 10 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
left the Delhi house of the appellant/husband in his absence on 26.08.2019
and that she had taken away all her belongings and jewellery since she
intended not to return to the house of the appellant/husband.

37. The appellant/husband in his testimony has further deposed that on
27.08.2019, the respondent/wife forcibly entered the residential matrimonial
home and insisted on residing there. Though the appellant/husband made a
complaint to the Police but no action was taken and he was advised to file a
Civil Suit.

38. From the testimony of the appellant/husband which is not
controverted by the respondent/wife either before the Family Court or in the
Appeal, it can be inferred that the respondent/wife has never shown any
keenness to have a happy conjugal relationship with the appellant. The
testimony of the appellant/husband proves that she consistently resided at
her matrimonial home separate from the appellant/husband who is residing
in Delhi. Not an iota of circumstance has been explained on behalf of the
respondent/wife to show that she had any intention to be in the matrimonial
relationship or reside with the appellant/husband; rather the overwhelming
evidence on record proves that she had sole interest to live with in the
matrimonial home away from the appellant/husband, whether the
appellant/husband was or was not residing there, with the sole objective of
getting the agricultural land of the parents of the appellant/husband
transferred in her name.

39. It is proved on record that there was a complete disinterest of the
respondent/wife in the matrimonial relationship and such rejection and
indifference of the respondent/wife towards the appellant with no efforts
whatsoever to reside with the appellant/husband, can only be termed as an

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 11 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22
act of cruelty towards the appellant/husband.

40. We, therefore, observe that the learned Judge, Family Court fell in
error in disbelieving the unchallenged testimony of the appellant/husband on
the sole ground that the documents of the properties of the parents of the
appellant/husband had not been produced by the appellant/husband. Those
documents have been placed on record by the appellant/husband in the
present Appeal.

41. We thus, conclude that the appellant/husband has been able to prove
that he has been subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent/wife, entitling
the appellant/husband to divorce on the ground of cruelty.

42. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed and the Judgment and
Decree dated 06.04.2022 is set aside and the divorce is granted on the
ground of cruelty under
Section 13(1) (ia) of HMA, 1955.

43. The Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 28, 2024
S.Sharma

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78/2022 Page 12 of 12
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.03.2024
17:09:22

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation