New Delhi:
A man has been granted divorce by a Delhi court on the ground that he underwent "tremendous" cruelty because of his wife, who deserted him just a month after marriage.
Additional district judge Sujata Kohli dissolved the marriage under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) saying the relationship between the couple, who stayed together only for a month, seems dead.
"Taking into account the facts, petitioner/husband has succeeded in establishing the grounds of cruelty as well as desertion as under Sec 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA and there is no other reason under the law on account of which the husband would be denied the relief and as such he is held entitled to decree of divorce on both grounds," the court said.
The court passed the order ex-parte as the woman failed to appear before it despite several opportunities.
The man had sought divorce on the ground he had married the woman in December 2009 and they started living separately just after a month due to his wife's behaviour.
He had alleged that the woman used to quarrel on trivial issues and her family members had also beaten him up when he tried to reach a compromise on the matter with her.
"The respondent would often threaten him that if he compels her to have any physical relations with him, she would spoil his life and that of his family members," the man had said in his petition, adding that his wife deserted him since January 1, 2010 and never came back.
The court said the husband has established that he was subjected to cruelty and was deserted by his wife.
"Taking the statement of the petitioner/husband as it stands, indeed it cannot be doubted that he has undergone tremendous mental as well as even physical cruelty, at the ends of the respondent (wife)," the judge said.
"Apart from that, throughout the marriage which seems to have lasted only for one month, the parties could not stay together at peace even during the short period.
"The marriage for all purposes seems to be dead and the respondent clearly seems to have left the company of the husband, for good, with an intention not to return," the court said.