The Delhi Excessive Court docket on Wednesday denied Nationwide Convention chief Omar Abdullah’s request for a divorce below the Particular Marriage Act, rejecting numerous accusations he made towards his estranged spouse, together with ones of cruelty and desertion.
The excessive court docket denied the attraction filed by Abdullah, the previous Jammu and Kashmir chief minister, who was contesting the 2016 ruling of a household court docket that denied him a divorce, stating that his argument lacked substance.
Each of Abdullah’s sons from a earlier marriage are by his spouse Payal.
“The appellant’s (Abdullah) allegation that respondent (Payal) did not support the appellant in his political career has also not been found to be substantiated,” A bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan mentioned whereas upholding the household court docket’s judgment.
Whereas the excessive court docket pronounced the decision on Tuesday, the 68-page judgment was made out there on the court docket’s web site on Wednesday.
On Abdullah’s allegation that his spouse was utilizing the children as pawns for her personal ulterior motives, the excessive court docket famous that the household court docket has held that the allegation of tutoring the kids has not been established.
“Appellant had access to his children and had been meeting them and spending time with them. Even this allegation has not been established by the appellant,” the bench mentioned.
The excessive court docket mentioned it has examined the proof led by the events and it was of the view that the household court docket rightly concluded that Abdullah “has not been able to prove that respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty so as to constitute a ground for divorce under the Special Marriage Act”.
“In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the family court that the allegations of cruelty were vague and unacceptable and that the appellant failed to prove any act which could be termed as an act of cruelty, whether physical or mental, towards him. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed,” the bench mentioned.
One of many grounds raised by Abdullah within the divorce petition was that his partner refused to shift to Kashmir in 2002, when he moved there to arrange himself for the following elections as a consequence of which he needed to fly to Delhi on weekends to satisfy his kids.
In response to the allegation, Payal had deposed that it was the choice of her husband and never hers as a consequence of safety causes and, extra importantly, as a result of the Jammu and Kashmir authorities operated from Srinagar and Jammu for six months alternately which might repeatedly displace the kids.
The excessive court docket mentioned the household court docket has rightly held that the estranged couple was in Delhi until 2002 on account of the exigencies of Abdullah’s personal work and never on the insistence or choice of his spouse to be right here.
Additional that it was pure for the kids to have been admitted in a college in Delhi, because the appellant and the respondent have been residing in Delhi. The declare of the appellant that it was respondent’s adamancy in getting kids admitted in Delhi faculty was thus held to be not tenable.
“The respondent in her testimony had deposed that appellant had been attacked twice while he was in Jammu and Kashmir along with the respondent and the children,” it famous.
The excessive court docket additional famous that protecting the kids’s schooling in thoughts they each took a aware determination of placing the children in a college in Delhi.
The household court docket has held that appellant could have needed to incessantly journey to Srinagar on account of his political compulsions, however such journey couldn’t be termed to be on account of the matrimonial discord between the events.
“Parties continued to have interactions as a family and frequently travelled together for vacations and the appellant as per his own testimony regularly visited the respondent and the children in Delhi. This arrangement of respondent and children residing in Delhi while appellant commuting to Srinagar on account of his work, cannot be termed as an act of mental cruelty towards the appellant,” the bench mentioned.
On August 30, 2016, the household court docket had dismissed Abdullah’s plea, holding that he couldn’t show his claims of “cruelty” or “desertion” which have been the grounds alleged by him for in search of a decree of divorce.
In his plea in search of divorce, Abdullah had claimed earlier than the household court docket that his marriage had damaged down irretrievably and he has not loved a marital relationship since 2007 and that the couple, married on September 1, 1994, was residing individually since 2009. The couple’s two sons are staying with their mom.
In August this 12 months, a single decide bench of the Delhi Excessive Court docket had directed Abdullah to pay Rs 1.5 lakh as month-to-month interim upkeep to his estranged spouse.
It had additionally ordered him to pay Rs 60,000 every on a month-to-month foundation for the schooling of his two sons who’re pursuing regulation.
The excessive court docket’s order had come on petitions by Payal Abdullah and the couple’s sons towards the 2018 decrease court docket orders granting her and them interim upkeep of Rs 75,000 and Rs 25,000 every until they attained the age of majority, respectively.
The decide had noticed that Abdullah has the monetary capability to supply a “decent standard of living to his wife and children” and that he mustn’t abdicate his duties as a father.
(with inputs from PTI)