The Delhi High Court has ruled that constant rejection and non-acknowledgment of the husband in marriage by his wife is a source of “great mental agony” for him.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty by his wife. The couple got married in March 2011 and started living separately just after six months.
The court noted that the husband, in his testimony, had deposed that the wife had refused to keep the fast of “Karwa Chauth” by stating that she considered another man as her husband and that she had been forced into marriage by her parents against her wishes.
“Such disconnect and constant rejection of any relationship or non-acknowledgment of the respondent as a husband is again a source of great mental agony for a husband,” the court said.
While dismissing the wife’s appeal, the bench said that the wife’s conduct has been held by the family court to have caused immense mental suffering, pain, and cruelty to the husband, thereby entitling him to divorce.
“The evidence on record established that the marriage for the parties was not a bed of roses as the appellant had an extreme reluctance to conjugal relationship and it was after much cajoling that they were able to develop a conjugal relationship, though it was totally devoid of any emotional relationship,” the court said.
Furthermore, the bench also noted that the evidence brought on record proved that the wife had extended threats of committing suicide not on one but two occasions.
“Such threats are likely to affect the peace of mind and take a toll on the mental wellbeing of the respondent and thus, the learned Principal Judge had rightly held this behavior of the appellant to be an act of immense cruelty,” the court said.
It also noted that a criminal case in which the husband and his family members were acquitted under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, proved that all allegations of dowry and harassment by the wife were not substantiated.
“In the present case, the appellant has not been able to prove that she was subjected to any dowry demands or harassed or subjected to cruelty. Though she had alleged harassment on account of dowry, those allegations have not been proved either in the criminal case or in the present case,” the court said.
It added, “members. A relationship of marriage rests on mutual trust, respect, and companionship, and the acts of the appellant, as discussed above, clearly establish and prove that these elements were totally missing from their marriage, essentially on account of the conduct of the appellant.”
Advocate Jyoti Batra appeared for the appellant. Advocate Shailender Dahiya represented the husband.