Birth Of Daughter Out Of Live-In-Relationship Sufficient Ground For Wife To Leave Company Of Husband: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that solemnization of marriage or starting to live in live-in-relationship, or birth of a daughter out of such relationship are sufficient ground for the Wife to leave the company of the Husband.

The Court observed that such an act cannot be treated as desertion or cruelty on behalf of Wife, rather it was on account of Husband’s cruelty, the Wife was compelled to live separately.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed, “The allegation of illicit relation of respondent leveled in reply to application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the year, 2003 i.e. after solemnization of marriage or starting living in live-in-relationship. Birth of a daughter out of such relationship in the year 1996 indicates that appellant is in such relationship at least since 1995 and it was and is sufficient ground for the respondent to leave the company of the appellant, which, at any stretch of imagination, cannot be treated as desertion or cruelty on behalf of respondent to the appellant, rather it is appellant on account of whose cruelty, respondent has been compelled to live separately.”

Senior Advocate G.C. Gupta represented the Appellant, while Advocate Parmod Singh Thakur represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

An Appeal was filed by the husband against the order of the Family Court whereby the petition preferred under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Act for dissolution of marriage between the parties was dismissed.

A Petition for dissolution of marriage was preferred by the Husband on the ground that after solemnization of marriage, the wife treated husband with cruelty and deserted him in January, 1994 till filing of the petition in 2008.

While the wife contended that the Husband left her at her parental home and had solemnized second marriage with another woman without any divorce.

Court’s Observation

The High Court noted that as per the records of the parivar register, the Husband had a daughter, who was born in 1996.

After considering the material on record, the Court emphasised that the Husband had contracted a second marriage with some other women without taking divorce from the wife. “The allegation leveled by the appellant (Husband) alleging illicit relation of respondent, were sufficient to compel the respondent (Wife) to live separately by leaving company of the appellant and for awarding maintenance by the Courts, it is substantiated that such allegation was false. Even otherwise, no evidence, to prove such allegation, has been produced rather it was claimed that appellant had not leveled such allegation, but Ex. RY belies the claim of the appellant.”, the Court said.

The Court opined that the Husband was in habit of levelling unnecessary and baseless charges against the Wife and even in the reply to the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. he had levelled the charges of illicit relations without any cause and only with intention to humiliate and causing cruelty to the Wife.

The Court emphasised that the statements of Wife has to be read as a whole and said, “Therefore, statement of respondent that she was not ready to live with the appellant is not a proof that she was not willing to live in the company of appellant in his village, but is is a statement made in view of subsequent events, i.e. solemnization of marriage by the appellant with another lady, which stands proved from the facts that a daughter was born on 5.3.1996 out of second marriage of Husband.”

The High Court observed that the birth of the daughter of Husband in 1996 clearly depicts that either he was already in relationship with someone or developed relations thereafter and even if he has not solemnized marriage, he was living in live in relationship since 1995.

Further, the Court held that solemnization of marriage or starting living in live-in-relationship, birth of a daughter out of such relationship were sufficient ground for the Wife to leave the company of the Husband and it cannot be treated as desertion or cruelty on behalf of Wife, rather it was on account of Husband’s cruelty, the Wife was compelled to live separately.

Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: D V. U (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:32992)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate G.C. Gupta, Advocates Meera Devi, Deepak Gupta

Respondent: Advocate Parmod Singh Thakur

Click here to read/download Judgment