The Delhi High Court has recently granted divorce to a man, citing cruelty inflicted upon him by his wife, who was allegedly under the undue influence of her parents, hindering the establishment of a marital bond.
The bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed that there was substantial evidence indicating “unwarranted interference” by the wife’s parents and family members in the couple’s married life, causing significant distress to the husband.
“From the evidence of the parties, it is evident that there was an unwarranted interference of the parents and the family members of the respondent in the matrimonial life of the appellant, as has been asserted by him,” the court noted.
The decision came in response to the husband’s appeal against a previous family court verdict that had denied him a divorce. The high court also noted that the parties had been living separately for approximately 13 years, during which time the husband faced deprivation of conjugal relations and endured various complaints filed against him, which constituted acts of cruelty.
The bench, also comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, stated in its recent order that the husband had successfully demonstrated the cruelty inflicted upon him by his wife, entitling him to divorce.
The court emphasised the wife’s failure to disentangle herself from her parental influence and establish a relationship with her husband, characterising such behaviour as mental cruelty.
Highlighting the importance of conjugal relations in marriage, the court deemed the continuation of a “dead relationship” as perpetuating further cruelty upon both parties. It condemned the filing of false complaints against the husband and his family members as constituting mental cruelty.
Furthermore, the court underscored that the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal relations. The absence of conjugal companionship, coupled with the wife’s reluctance to resume the matrimonial relationship, was deemed an act of extreme cruelty.
“For a spouse to be deprived of his wife’s company proves that the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of conjugal relationships is an act of extreme cruelty. Such long separation with no effort by the wife to resume matrimonial relationships is an act of cruelty, as is held in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007),” the court said.
In light of the evidence presented, the court concluded that reconciliation between the parties was improbable, given the prolonged separation marked by false allegations, police reports, and criminal trials. Such circumstances were deemed indicative of mental cruelty.
“We thus conclude that the evidence on record proved that there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties, and such long separation peppered with false allegations, police reports, and criminal trial can only be termed as mental cruelty. The marital discord between the parties has pinnacled to complete loss of faith, trust, understanding, love and affection between the parties. This dead relationship has become infested with acrimony, irreconcilable differences and protracted litigations; any insistence to continue this relationship would only be perpetuating further cruelty upon both the parties”, the bench observed.
The court ordered, “We, thus, set-aside the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2009 and grant the divorce under Section 13(i)(ia) of the HMA, 1955. The appeal is accordingly allowed”.
Comments
0 comment