• How to get divorce

I was married on June  2010, after 2 months my wife left me and filed case under section 498 "cruelty & harassment" case against me and also filed case for Alimony. The verdict came in my favor after 3 years as prosecution could not prove the charges. Now as per court ruling i have to pay 3500 rs as alimony every month. Now i am trying to get divorce by mutual consent. We are living separately for last 4 years. I  consulted lawyer but he told me it will take minimum 5 years. so how can i get divorce as soon as possible because wife doesn't want to give me divorce and want to harass me.   
Asked 1 year ago in Civil Law from Valsad, Gujarat
1) you have been acquitted in 498A case by court 

2) you can file for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty .

3) filing of false 498A case amounts to mental cruelty and is ground for divorce . 

4) contested divorce cases take 5 years 

5) mutual consent divorce take s 6 months 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21636 Answers
1128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Ashok Khedkar .... ..... ..... ..... Appellant. 
Sou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar..... .... ..... ....Respondent. 
Mr.Hitesh Vyas, Adv. For the appellant.
Mr.Sachin S. Pande, Adv. For the respondent. 
Date:12th  April, 2010. 
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Deshpande, J.)
This is family court appeal filed by the unsuccessful husband
whose petition for divorce has been dismissed by the Family Court.
The appellant and the respondent’s marriage was solemnized as per
Hindu rites and customs at Pune on 8.3.2001.  The marriage was
an arranged marriage and after the marriage the respondent  came
to reside with the appellant.  The appellant’s mother resides along
with   the   appellant.     The   petition   for   divorce   was   filed   on   the
ground of mental cruelty under section 13(1)(i­a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.  
2. According to the petitioner on the wedding night itself the
respondent alleged that she was deceived in regard to income of
the appellant.   The respondent allegedly stated that the salary of
the appellant as informed to her was much more than what he was
actually receiving.   It is also alleged that with reference to the
number of spectacle the respondent taunted the appellant by saying
that   she   was   made   to   perform   marriage   with   a   blind   person.
Touching those issues the respondent allegedly started quarreling
with the petitioner and insulting the petitioner.  It is the case of the
appellant that since beginning the behaviour of the respondent was
arrogant   and   rude   and   immediately   after   the   marriage   the
respondent was insisting that the petitioner should stay separately
from his mother in one of the two flats owned by the appellant’s
family  situated at Raviwar Peth, Pune.  According to the appellant
he tried to convince the respondent that his mother is old and there
is no one else to look after her and hence refused to stay separately.
It is also the case of the appellant that the respondent gave threats
that   she   would   commit   suicide   if   the   appellant   fails   to   reside
separately.     The   respondent   also   denied   conjugal   rights   to   the
appellant so as to coerce him to stay separate from his mother.  On
the above referred allegations touching mental agony and torture
divorce petition was filed. 
3. Sometime   in   December   2002   the   respondent   went   to   the
house of her parents for delivery.   She delivered a girl child on
26.2.03.   Despite passage of enough time the respondent did not
join the company of the appellant.   According to the appellant
because   of   the   insistence   on   the   part   of   respondent   to   stay
separately the marital life was disturbed and peace and harmony
was lost. 
On   3.5.03   the   father   of   the   respondent   brought   the
respondent to the house of the appellant but without meeting the
appellant or his mother respondent's father went away.  On 6.5.03
the respondent called her parents and brother at the house of the
appellant.  The near relations of the respondent quarreled with the
petitioner and his mother and after creating a scene threatened the
appellant that they would implicate the appellant and members of
his family in false criminal cases. So threatening the appellant,
father and brother of the respondent took her away along with
them.  While leaving the appellant’s residence they said that only if
he   resides   separately   the   respondent   will   be   sent   back.     The
appellant   immediately   sent   a   notice   on   9.5.03   asking   the
respondent to join the company and cohabit with the appellant but
instead of joining the company of the appellant the respondent
initiated criminal case under section 498A of IPC not only against
the appellant and his mother but three other near relations who
were staying separately including the uncle, aunt and husband of
the aunt.  All the persons accused of having committed the offence
under section 498A of IPC were arrested by the police and they
were detained in custody.  This is the main circumstance which is
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that
lodging  of  false case  which  resulted in  arrest and detention  of
family members of the appellant is singularly sufficient enough to
hold that the respondent is guilty of causing mental cruelty and
agony to the appellant and thus pressed for grant of decree of
divorce.  According to the learned counsel for the appellant arrest
and detention of the family members and near relations of the
appellant   in   false   case   has   caused   him   utmost   mental   torture.
During pendnecy of divorce petition the said criminal case came to
be decided by a judgment dated 13.5.05 by Judicial Magistrate,
First   Class,   Pune   acquitting   the   appellant   and   all   his   family
members from the charge under section 498A of IPC.  
4. Perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution
utterly failed to prove the case put forth by the complainant.  The
Judicial   Magistrate   has   recorded   categoric   finding   that   the
complainant’s own testimony falsifies  the prosecution case that the
complainant was treated cruely and was harassed by the accused
persons with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their
unlawful   demand   of   Rs.50,000/­.     The   Magistrate   has   totally
disbelieved the version of the complainant/wife and has acquitted
the   accused   persons.     On   a   careful   reading   of   the   judgment
rendered in the case of prosecution under section 498A of IPC one
thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had
filed a false case not only against her husband and mother­in­law
but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations.  It is obvious
that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his
family members respondent has treated the appellant with utmost
mental cruelty and the appellant has suffered agony.  It will not be
out of place to mention that the complaint filed by the wife was
calculatedly designed in as much as it was a sort of counter blast to
the divorce petition filed by the husband.  The appellant had filed
divorce petition on 16.6.03 whereas the complaint was lodged by
the respondent­wife on 11.7.03.  
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
and his family members including ladies who did not stay along
with   the   appellant   were   arrested   and   detained   causing   utmost
humiliation and embarrassment and agony to the appellant.  This
solitary   incidence   would   itself   constitute   mental   cruelty   even   if
other circumstances are not taken into account and thus the trial
court has erred in law in dismissing the divorce petition.  Para 29 of
the judgment of family court deals with this aspect of the matter by
observing :
“There can not be absolutely two opinions regarding
legal proposition that if the wife filed false criminal cases
against the husband, her conduct does amount to causing
mental cruelty and torture to him, therefore, the husband
becomes   entitled   for   a   decree   of   divorce.     The   necessary
condition for constituting such legal cruelty is that the wife
has   indulged   into   making   false   and   reckless   allegation   by
filing false complaint to the police.  A singular complaint filed
by wife under section 498A of IPC against the husband and
his family members can not indicate the tendency of wife to
indulge into making such false allegation.”
We fail to understand the logic behind the reasoning adopted by
the family court to hold that a singular complaint of this nature
under section 498A of IPC resulting in arrest and detention of the
family   members   and   relatives   thereby   causing   utmost
embarrassment,   humiliation   and   suffering   does   not   constitute
mental cruelty. It is illogical that more than  one complaint are
necessary to be filed to constitute mental cruelty.     In our view,
embarrassment, humiliation and suffering that is caused on account
of  arrest and detention of appellant and his family members and
relatives in a false case does constitute mental cruelty to enable the
husband to seek decree of divorce on this sole ground.   In our
considered opinion,   the approach of the family court is wholly
perverse and the reasoning cannot be sustained in law.  In regard to
other circumstances the family court has observed :
“At   the   most   one   can   infer   that   this   conduct   of   the
respondent may have caused some disharmony between the
couple but in no way it can be said that it was sufficient to
constitute a mental cruelty to petitioner or his mother.”
Without deliberating on all the circumstances in detail we are of
the clear view that cumulative effect of the behaviour and conduct
of   the   respondent   is   good   enough   to   draw   an   inference   that
respondent has caused utmost mental pain and suffering which
constitute mental cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant
is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.  
6. This brings us to the consideration of question of granting
maintenance to the girl child who is aged about 8 years.   The
family court in exercise of powers under section 24 had granted
interim maintenance of Rs.700/­ p.m. whereas this Court by an
interim order has raised it to Rs.1000/­ p.m. The appellant so also
the respondent are both gainfully employed.  They are earning in
the range of Rs.5000 to 7000 per month each.   The child is in
custody   of   the   respondent­mother.     Learned   counsel   for   the
appellant on instructions from his client who is present in the court
submitted   that   the   appellant   would   pay   a   sum   of   Rs.1.5   lacs
towards permanent alimony for the maintenance of child.  Having
found the said amount insufficient we persuaded the counsel for
the appellant  to raise the amount so that monthly interest on the
said amount works out in the range of Rs.2000 per month.   The
mother of the appellant has come forward to contribute further
sum of Rs.1.5 lacs towards maintenance of the child.  In our view if
the appellant pays sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of permanent alimony
for   the   maintenance   of   child   the   said   amount   if   kept   in   fixed
deposit can fetch interest of Rs.2000/­ per month and the same
could be utilized by the respondent for upbringing of the daughter.
In the result we pass the following order: 
(i) The marriage of the appellant and respondent stands
dissolved by a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i­a) ;
(ii) The  appellant  shall   pay  sum  of  Rs.3  lacs  by   way  of
permanent alimony for the maintenance of the girl child.  The
said amount of Rs.3 lacs shall be invested in fixed deposit in a
nationalized   bank   and   the   respondent   is   permitted   to
withdraw the interest accrued thereon quarterly. The amount
of Rs.3 lacs shall be invested in the fixed deposit within two
months from today in the name of the minor child and the
respondent would be shown as her guardian;
(iii) The said sum of Rs.3 lacs shall be kept invested in fixed
deposit till the child attains majority.  
(iv) Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. 
At this stage the learned counsel for the respondent seeks stay
of this order.  Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances
we do not find any reason to stay the impugned order.  Hence the
prayer is rejected
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21636 Answers
1128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Mutual divorce will come through in 6 months.

2. If you unilaterally file for divorce and your wife opposes it then it will take longer. The exact time frame cannot be predicted by any of us as it depends on local factors such as backlog of cases in the concerned court, etc.

3. Your wife will be given sufficient opportunity to oppose the divorce proceedings as and when you initiate it.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
17389 Answers
425 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. For getting mutual consent divorce, both you and your wife must mutually agree to have the divorce decree on mutually agreed terms,

2. So, negotiate with her for MCD against paying her a lump sum amount,

3. MCD will be decided just within 6 & 1/2 months from the date of its filing. 
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
11259 Answers
205 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1.Divorce by Mutual consent takes minimum time, that is 6 months.
2.Convince your wife for MCD so that both of you would be independent after the decree of MCD and can take own decision about remarriage and about the prospects of starting the life afresh.
3.Inspite of your efforts if she does not come and live with you,  get an order from the court for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and even if she does not come and live with you, you can apply for divorce based on this point itself.
4.Collect evidence of her harassment on you.
Shashidhar S. Sastry
Advocate, Bangalore
1165 Answers
55 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Hi, for getting divorce under mutual consent  5 years will not required normally it will complete with in 8 to 10 months better you contact any advocate who knows the family law.
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4092 Answers
129 Consultations
4.3 on 5.0
1) there are no short cuts in litigation 

2) contested divorce cases take 5 years to be disposed of 

3) best go in for divorce by mutual consent by paying her lump sum amount as alimony 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21636 Answers
1128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Hi, if she denies the divorce by mutual consent then you have a good case on merits if you files a case divorce by way of cruelty.

2. As far as latest Supreme Court Judgement filling a false case to husband it also amount to cruelty so you can file a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty.
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4092 Answers
129 Consultations
4.3 on 5.0
1. MCD is the shortest way to get the decree of divorce,

2. If that is not possible, the only other way left is by filing contested divorce suit,

3. Negotiate with her for MCD.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
11259 Answers
205 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
As said earlier by me, the path to divorce will begin by filing a case for divorce on the basis of cruelty. She will be given an opportunity to contest your case. 
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
17389 Answers
425 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Since you are acquitted in 498A case which was falsely hoisted on you by your wife, on the same ground you can go for contested divorce, if she does not agree for mutual consent divorce.
Shashidhar S. Sastry
Advocate, Bangalore
1165 Answers
55 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Civil Lawyers

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21636 Answers
1128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
12556 Answers
120 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
17389 Answers
425 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
11259 Answers
205 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3336 Answers
122 Consultations
4.8 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2635 Answers
38 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
804 Answers
36 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1847 Answers
18 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1932 Answers
61 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Thresiamma G. Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1275 Answers
82 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0