The factum of Desertion and the INTENT to desert to be proven for divorce – man told
“….“How can it be desertion? This is an eye-opener. Employers should consider whether ladies (sic) should be transferred,”….”
Long-distance marriage not a reason for divorce: HC
Satish (38) married Seema (35) on May 9, 2001, as per Buddhist rites. On June 1 that year, she left for Ahmedabad to resume duty at the Reserve Bank of India, where she was an officer. The following January, she visited her matrimonial home for a ceremony preceding childbirth. A son was born on April 5, 2002.
In his HC appeal, Satish said that at the naming ceremony of the child, held at his in-laws’ residence on May 26, 2002, he had an argument with Seema. He said that the next day Seema came to his office, created a scene and humiliated him in front of his colleagues. He said the Buddhist Utkarsha Mandal (a community committee) tried to make them tide over their differences in vain.
In June 2006, Satish filed a petition in the family court for restitution of conjugal rights. He withdrew it in October 2007 as Seema was unwilling to reconcile. A month later, he filed for divorce on grounds of desertion, citing long passage of time. The court rejected his petition in October 2010, saying it could not be said that Seema had deserted him with the intent to never cohabit with him.
On Friday, the HC bench observed that just because Seema was posted in Ahmedabad, it could not be a reason for Satish to get a divorce citing desertion. “How can it be desertion? This is an eye-opener. Employers should consider whether ladies (sic) should be transferred,” said Justice Majmudar. Seema’s advocate said Satish regularly visited her in Ahmedabad on weekends, but after she was transferred to Mumbai, he refused her entry to her matrimonial home. “When she was in Ahmedabad, you used to visit her. Now that she is in Mumbai, you don’t want her back? What sort of a husband are you?” Justice Majmudar asked.
The judges wondered if Satish had some other reason for seeking a divorce. “You lived here alone. Was there something? You used to go there to fool her? Did you make a show of affection?” Justice Majmudar asked.
The judges noted that Satish was not present in court while Seema had taken leave to attend the hearing. They summoned Satish to court for the next hearing.
(Names changed to protect identities)