Delhi High Court also said that the very fact that the parties have been living separately since November 1996 and no conciliation has taken place for the past 27 years, proves that the parties were unable to sustain their matrimonial relationship.
Making false allegations against the “chastity” of a woman amounts to “mental cruelty”, the Delhi High Court observed on Wednesday while granting a divorce decree to a woman on grounds of cruelty and desertion for the couple had been living separately for the last 27 years.
The high court noted that “mental cruelty” is wide enough to also take within its ambit the “financial instability” which results in mental anxiety.
“It emerges that ‘mental cruelty’ cannot be defined in any straight jacket parameter. The circumstances and the situation of the spouses have to be considered to ascertain if certain acts, which are complained of, would be a source of mental agony and pain.
“In the present case, it is easy to decipher the mental trauma as the appellant (woman) was working and the respondent (husband) was not working. There was a huge disparity in the financial status of the appellant and the respondent. The endeavours of the respondent to be able to sustain himself had admittedly failed,” a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
The woman in her plea said that her husband had started levelling allegations against her of having an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law and many other persons. The court noted that the husband has vaguely replied that there was constant interference from her brother-in-law and other family members and said this lends credence to the woman’s testimony.
“There can be no greater cruelty than making false allegations against the chastity of a woman,” it said and further observed that a dead relationship only brings pain and agony
The couple had got married in 1989 and had no children. They started living separately in 1996.
The woman told the court that she was working with a multi-national company prior to her marriage and it was represented to her that the man was a Delhi University graduate and was earning Rs 10,000 per month from different sources. She was under the perception that the man’s family has a good financial status and position and they owned a two-and-a-half-storey bungalow in Delhi.
However, after marriage, she came to know that the man was neither a graduate nor working in any concern. He did not have a job and the only money he used to get was from his mother. The man denied all the allegations levelled against him, including that of dowry demands and cruelty.
The high court said the very fact that the parties have been living separately since November 1996 and no conciliation has taken place for the past about 27 years, proves that the parties were unable to sustain their matrimonial relationship.
“The court cannot be a party to perpetuation of such mental cruelty,” the bench said, granting the appellant (the woman) a divorce decree under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.