The Delhi High Court, in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 112/2025, Nitin Jain v. Pallavi Jain, dismissed the husband’s appeal against the Family Court’s decree dissolving the marriage under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Facts:
- The parties married on 15.01.2005 and have one child.
- The husband earlier obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights (11.09.2018), but no cohabitation followed.
- The wife filed for divorce after more than a year’s separation.
- The Family Court granted divorce on 08.01.2025.
Appellant’s Grounds:
- Lack of territorial jurisdiction — wife allegedly resided in Gurugram, not Delhi.
- Divorce barred as execution of restitution decree was pending.
- Wife concealed prior proceedings under Sections 10 and 13(1)(ia) HMA.
- Relief barred under Section 23(1)(a) HMA — wife taking advantage of her own wrong.
High Court’s Findings:
- Territorial jurisdiction objection was untenable; proved rent agreement showed respondent’s residence in Delhi. As per Section 21 CPC, absence of prejudice or failure of justice means no invalidity.
- Allegations of concealment lacked merit; prior cases were disclosed in replication.
- Statutory requirements of Section 13(1A)(ii) were met — parties lived separately for over a year after decree for restitution.
- Mere refusal to resume cohabitation is not a “wrong” under Section 23(1)(a); no serious misconduct proven.
- Family Court’s findings were reasoned and correct.
Outcome:
Appeal dismissed; divorce decree upheld
