Bombay High Court Rejects Divorce Plea, Upholds Sanctity Of Marriage In Face Of Career Aspirations Abroad
Judgement Given On : 24/06/2021
Introduction
In the case of Prakashchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi and others, the Bombay High Court, on June 24, 2021, ruled on a divorce petition filed by the appellant (husband) seeking to end his marriage with the respondent (wife) on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The central question before the court was whether the wife’s desire to stay in Canada for her career could be considered cruelty and desertion.
Background
The husband and wife in this case were both overseas citizens of Canada. They had been in a courtship for eight years before getting married in 2004. Subsequently, the husband shifted to Canada in 2003, and the wife joined him on a spousal visa. Their life together took various turns, including the birth of their son in the following years.
However, challenges arose when Canada faced a recession in 2010, leading to the husband’s job loss and financial difficulties for the family. Additionally, the husband suffered from health issues, including back and shoulder pain and a skin allergy. Due to these circumstances, they decided to return to India. A month after their return, the wife left for her parental home and expressed her desire to return to Canada with their son. The husband attempted to find employment, hoping for his wife’s return, but she refused.
The husband initiated legal proceedings by first filing for the restitution of conjugal rights, which the wife did not respond to, and eventually, he filed for divorce. The divorce case was decided ex parte, and the court found the husband’s pleas and evidence to be vague.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Bombay High Court examined the case and made the following key observations and rulings:
- Insufficient Evidence: The court noted that the pleadings and evidence presented by the husband were insufficient to reverse the Family Court’s judgment.
- Wife’s Career in Canada: The court recognized that the wife had established a career in Canada as a Regulatory Affairs Associate at a pharmaceutical company. Given her settled life and career, it would not be justified to expect her to return to India.
- Mutual Decision to Relocate: The court emphasized that it was the husband who had initially decided to settle abroad for better prospects. Therefore, the wife’s wish to live in Canada could not be labeled as selfishness or cruelty on her part.
- Comparison with Samar Ghosh Case: The court distinguished the present case from the Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh case, where there was a clear indication of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. In this case, the court found it challenging to conclude that the marriage had deteriorated to a point where reconciliation was impossible, especially considering their young son.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the husband’s appeal, ruling that no case had been made for a divorce based on cruelty or desertion. The court’s decision underscored the importance of considering the circumstances, mutual decisions, and individual career aspirations of both spouses when adjudicating divorce cases. In this instance, the court determined that the wife’s desire to continue her career in Canada did not amount to cruelty or desertion, and it upheld the sanctity of the marriage.