Wife's Persistent Quarrels, Opposition To Husband Supporting Parents Despite Shifting House Is Cruelty: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that wife's persistent quarrelsome conduct, opposition to the husband supporting his parents, continued discord even after the couple shifted to a separate residence and denial of physical relations constitutes cruelty.A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar dismissed an appeal filed by a wife against the decree of...
The Delhi High Court has held that wife's persistent quarrelsome conduct, opposition to the husband supporting his parents, continued discord even after the couple shifted to a separate residence and denial of physical relations constitutes cruelty.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar dismissed an appeal filed by a wife against the decree of divorce dissolving her marriage with her husband on the grounds of cruelty to him under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court found that the evidence supported the husband's case that discord had persisted throughout the marriage. It noted that the wife had frequently quarreled with her husband and his parents, leading to separation of the kitchen in the joint family home.
Even after the couple shifted to Delhi, her conduct did not improve and she continued to frequently fight with her husband, the Bench said.
The husband had filed the divorce petition before the family court alleging that from the beginning of the marriage, his wife was frequently quarrelsome with him and his parents.
He alleged that she objected to his giving a portion of his salary to his parents and, soon after marriage, separated the kitchen from his parents in the joint family home at Narnaul.
The husband further alleged that although the couple subsequently shifted to Delhi, her conduct did not improve. According to him, she continued to frequently quarrel with him, did not cook food for him and, on one occasion in January 2012, misbehaved with him in the presence of his friend.
He also alleged that she kept her room in the Narnaul matrimonial home locked even after shifting to Delhi, causing inconvenience to his parents.
On the other hand, the wife alleged that her husband used to abuse and beat her and that he was pressuring her to transfer a flat in his name. She also alleged that he was having an extra-marital relationship with his colleague.
It was also alleged by the her that the husband used to return home under the influence of liquor and beat her, that he had purchased a house in his lover's name, and that he had sold her jewellery and taken away Rs. 1.5 lakh in cash.
Upholding the grant of divorce in favour of the husband, the Court said that the Trial Court had rightly held that the allegations of extra marital relations were not proved.
It said that allegations of extra marital relationship are always of very serious nature and thus, such allegations not only spoil the reputation of the spouse but also have serious consequences upon the reputation of the person with whom such spouse is alleged to have indulged.
The Court further observed that the allegations of extra-marital relations were made after the wife received notice of the divorce petition and agreed with the Trial Court's finding that the allegations were an afterthought and counterblast to the divorce proceedings.
Further, the Court found substance in the argument of the husband's counsel that the wife had kept her room in the joint family house locked with a view to harass her in-laws. It said that had there been marked change in her behavior after shifting to Delhi, the same could have brought some relief to the life of her husband.
The Bench also held that the act of the wife of locking the room of her joint family residence an act of cruelty, aimed at harassing her in-laws.
“Therefore, we hold that the behavior of setting of a separate kitchen and total separation from joint family by shifting to Delhi was not a normal act of the appellant. Rather the same were the acts of cruelty,” the Court said.
It was also observed that the husband led more than enough evidence of cruel acts committed by the wife, holding that an aggrieved spouse cannot be expected to maintain a diary of each incident.
“The cruelty on the part of the appellant (wife) started from the start of the marital life itself and continued till filing of the divorce petition and even thereafter. The acts of cruelty were perpetrated by the appellant (wife) on day-to-day basis, which left the matrimonial bond totally shattered and the same, to our mind, are so serious that there is total disruption of matrimonial bond with no chance of redemption,” the Bench said.
Title: X v. Y