The Delhi High Court noted the wife's "extreme reluctance" to have conjugal relationship
A marriage rests on mutual trust, respect and companionship, and constant rejection by a wife is a source of great mental agony for a husband, the Delhi High Court said, upholding divorce granted to a couple living separately since 2011 with no possibility of reconciliation.
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dismissed an appeal filed by the wife against a family court order granting divorce on her husband's request earlier this year, saying the "marriage for the parties was not a bed of roses" and the appellant's conduct "caused immense mental suffering, pain and cruelty" to her spouse, entitling him to a divorce.
The man alleged that besides implicating him and his family in an unsuccessful criminal case for cruelty, his wife refused to fast on "Karwa Chauth" as she did not recognise him as her husband because she loved someone else.
The man also claimed that his wife did not respect him or his family members and even threatened to die by suicide.
"The respondent in his testimony had deposed that she had even refused to fast on Karwa Chauth by asserting that she considered 'R' as her husband, and she had been forced into a marriage with the respondent 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," said the bench, also comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in an order passed on September 11.
"A relationship of marriage rests on mutual trust, respect and companionship and the acts of the appellant clearly establish and prove that these elements were totally missing from their marriage, essentially on account of the conduct of the appellant," the court said.
In the order, the court observed that the Supreme Court has held in a case that the constant fear on account of threats of suicide amounted to cruelty as it would be harmful to live with such a spouse.
Such threats are likely to affect the peace of mind and take a toll on the mental well-being of the other party, and the family court rightly held that the wife's behaviour was an act of immense cruelty.
The court added the woman also failed to prove that she was subjected to any dowry demands or was harassed, and such "unsubstantiated" allegations enable her husband to claim divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty.
The complaints and the conduct of the woman can only be termed as designed to humiliate and insult her husband and his family members, it said.
The court noted the wife's "extreme reluctance" to have conjugal relationship. It said it was "after much cajoling" that the parties were able to develop a conjugal relationship which was totally devoid of any emotional relationship.
"The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, had rightly concluded that the parties have been living separately since October, 2011 and there has been no conjugal relationship and there was no possibility of reconciliation despite efforts being made by the families. The conduct of the appellant has been held to have caused immense mental suffering, pain and cruelty to the respondent thereby entitling him to divorce. We find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed," the court ruled.