HC Grants Divorce To Man On Grounds Of Mental Cruelty: What’s The Case About?

On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court granted divorce to a man on the account of mental cruelty faced by him because of the non-adjusting attitude of his wife. The couple got married in 2001 and separated after living together for 16 years. Read on to learn more about this court proceeding. 

As per reports, the bench was headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. The court rejected the judgement of a family court that refused to grant the husband divorce. It said that "subsisting unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct" that affects the mental and physical health of a spouse is mental cruelty. 

Not a normal case of wear and tear in marriage

The bench observed that this was not the case of normal wear and tear in marriage. A comprehensive view of the case shows that the husband faced mental cruelty and continuing the marriage would be perpetuation of that cruelty. The court also said that just because there were no legal proceedings in the first 14 years of the marriage, it doesn't mean the relationship was smooth. It only indicates the husband's endeavours to sustain the marriage as much as he could. 

"It can be concluded that though an endeavour was made by the parties to reside together but despite their efforts which spanned over 16 years, there was constant bickering and disquiet in their relationship, which did not allow their relations to flourish," the court said. 

Referring to the incidents in the marriage that the court examined, it said that they clearly indicated non-adjusting attitude of the wife. The court said that the wife was not mature enough to sort out the differences with her husband without his public humiliation. 

The wife's accusations are unsubstantiated: The court

The wife on the other hand had accused the husband of demanding dowry. She also alleged that her father-in-law sexually harassed her. The wife further said that her husband had illicit relationship with his colleagues and friends. However, the court rejected her complaints saying that there was no proper evidence supporting her claims. Calling the charges of sexual harassment "irresponsible and serious allegations", the court also said that the charges were sources of great mental pain and cruelty for the husband. 

"The consistent and completely unsubstantiated allegations of dowry harassment as made by the respondent in her Written Statement against the appellant and his family members, that too after sixteen years of marriage, are without any basis and can only be termed as source of great mental pain constituting grave cruelty," the court added. 

Adding further about how the unsubstantiated complaints caused embarrassment and mental cruelty, the court said, "Complaints, if frivolously made, expose the person against whom the complaint is made, to embarrassment in the eyes of the society causing mental agony.. The respondent, from her conduct, demonstrates that she has been persistent and insistent on making allegations against the appellant, without any basis." 

The bench hence granted divorce to the husband on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It concluded the judgement by saying, "the appellant (husband) has been subjected to cruelty during his matrimonial life and no fruitful purpose would be served in flogging a dead horse."