Shimla, September 23 - In a detailed judgment that peeled back layers of a long and bitter marital dispute, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Monday dismissed a husband's appeal for divorce, holding that it was he, not the wife, who had treated the marriage with cruelty. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, presiding over the bench, observed that the husband, Desh Raj Gupta, had "contracted another marriage and levelled false charges of illicit relations," making it impossible for the wife, Urmila Gupta, to resume cohabitation.
The case, Desh Raj Gupta vs. Urmila Gupta (FAO HMA No. 304 of 2014), has been pending for over a decade and stems from a marriage solemnized in 1993 at Shimla under Hindu rites.
Background
The couple's marriage was short-lived. Barely seven months after their wedding, they began living separately - he in Tattapani, she with her family in Shimla. Desh Raj alleged that Urmila "could not adjust to village life" and deserted him in January 1994. He filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming cruelty and desertion.
Urmila, however, told the court that her husband had abandoned her at her parental home and never returned. She even approached the Himachal Pradesh Women Commission in 2001, accusing Desh Raj of solemnizing a second marriage and failing to provide her maintenance or dowry articles.
"He left me without explanation and remarried. I was left alone after my mother’s death, with no income," she had stated before the Commission.
In 2006, she succeeded in obtaining a maintenance order of ₹3,000 per month under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code - a finding later upheld by the Sessions Judge.
Court's Observations
Justice Thakur carefully traced the timeline. The bench noted that a daughter named Kajal was born in 1996, recorded as Desh Raj's child in the family register, proving he had a relationship with another woman while still married to Urmila.
"From the date of birth, it is evident the appellant was in a live-in relationship since at least 1995," the court remarked.
Rejecting the husband's argument that the wife deserted him, the court pointed out that his own actions - particularly remarrying or cohabiting with another woman - constituted cruelty.
"Such conduct is sufficient to compel the respondent to live separately," the judge said.
The court also criticized Desh Raj for making "false and humiliating allegations" that Urmila had illicit relations, observing that such unfounded charges were "enough to cause mental agony and amount to cruelty."
"The allegation of illicit relation was not substantiated and was false. These very allegations forced the wife to live apart," the bench observed.
Further, Justice Thakur noted that Desh Raj never made genuine efforts to reconcile.
"Even before the Women Commission, he did not insist that the wife return, but only agreed to hand over dowry articles," the court said.
The bench found it telling that despite accusing Urmila of desertion, the husband's own pleadings were amended years later to insert claims that she could not adjust to rural life - an afterthought that weakened his credibility.
Decision
After analyzing the evidence, the High Court concluded that Desh Raj had not only failed to prove cruelty or desertion by his wife but had himself been the cause of the marital breakdown. The judge categorically held that "living separately on account of the husband's second marriage or relationship cannot be termed as desertion by the wife."
"It is the appellant on account of whose cruelty the respondent was compelled to live separately," the judgment declared.
Finding no ground for interference with the trial court’s 2014 order, Justice Thakur dismissed the appeal in its entirety, affirming that Desh Raj's petition for divorce was "devoid of merit."
The courtroom, quiet through much of the pronouncement, reflected the exhaustion of a case that had stretched across 17 years and multiple forums. For Urmila, it was a rare victory - not just legal, but deeply personal, restoring her dignity after decades of being accused and abandoned.
Case Title:- Desh Raj Gupta vs. Urmila Gupta
Case Number:- FAO (HMA) No. 304 of 2014
Date of Decision: 23 September 2025
