The Delhi High Court in the case X v. Y observed and has granted divorce to a man on the grounds of cruelty by his wife.
The court in the case observed that she had a ‘non-adjusting attitude’ and no maturity to sort out the differences with him without his public humiliation due to which he suffered mental cruelty.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in the case observed and has stated that no fruitful purpose would be served in flogging a dead horse and granted divorce to the husband. The court stated that the evidence on record makes it abundantly evident that the discord between the parties was not a mere normal wear and the tear of marriage but when viewed comprehensively, were necessarily the acts of cruelty which being towards the appellant making their continuation in matrimonial relationship an act of perpetuation of cruelty. The bench in the case observed and has set aside the order of Family Court, wherein the court dismissed the petition filed by the husband seeking a divorce from the wife as stated under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In the present case, the parties got married in 2001 and the two girls were born from their wedlock. Thus, the divorce petition was filed in the year 2017. The court while allowing the appeal of husband’s stated that the parties had been in a matrimonial relationship for a long period, their married life was not blissful, was tumultuous and they were not able to forge any love, affection, and trust between them. The bench stated that the wife, from her conduct, demonstrated that she had been persistent and insistent on making allegations against the husband without any basis.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that restoring to legal remedies cannot be termed as an act of cruelty, however, invoking of the jurisdiction of legal authorities has to be bona fide and with some basis. Thus, the respondent has not been able to prove or justify the grounds of either alleged dowry harassment or of domestic violence in the present case.
The counsel, Advocate Ms. Raavi Birbal appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate Mr. Prateek Mehta, Advocate Mr. Anshul Luthra and Advocate Mr. Vikas represented the respondent.