Wife Refuses To Go To Matrimonial Home For 10 Yrs Awaiting ‘Shubh Muhurat’: Chhattisgarh HC Calls It ‘Desertion’, Grants Husband Divorce

By – Rakshita Jain

A woman didn’t return to a matrimonial home for nearly 10 years just because the auspicious time or “shubh mahurat” had not come. Due to this weird incident, a decree of divorce has been granted to a man as Chattisgarh High Court permitted. They held that this amounted to negligence.

The court stated that it’s a case of resentment as the wife had not come to the matrimonial house for such a long period of time. The auspicious time means a happy life but in this matter, the time has just used a tool or obstacle by wife to start their married life, the HC said.

The petition had been filed by Santosh Singh to reverse a family court order and deny his divorce due to the case of desertion. The couple got married in 2010 and lived for 11 days together after marriage, as per the petition. Her family took her away claiming that she needed some work.

The Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Goutam Bhaduri ruled that as per the facts of this case, the Husband was permitted to get a decree of divorce under Section 13 (I b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Under this section, it lays out “Desertion” as a ground of divorce as it especially mentioned the end of marriage on the basis that spouse has been abandoned by husband or wife for a long or continuous period of time not less than two years.

While asking the wife to her family, they informed her that time is not good or shubh mahurat has not come. Singh filed a return of marital rights which was ordered without notice. But when the auspicious time began, the wife claimed that she was ready to go but Singh did not return to take her back as per the custom which was important.

She also mentioned she had not deserted him and he failed to take her back as per customs. Singh’s lawyer mentioned that although the wife was aware of the return to martial home. It was the right decision, later she again refuses to return to start their marital life.

As per the council, the husband was needed to personally appear and take her up. She also claimed that when her spouse arrived to take her but time was not auspicious. The court noted the wife’s defense of custom which had not been proved in the trial court.

The wife’s lawyer claimed that the husband was expected to personally come and pick her up. She also claimed that the time her spouse arrived to take her was not auspicious. Along with that, the husband had to appear to pick her wife for the “Duviragam” ritual as per counsel.