‘Mental Cruelty’ Wide Enough To Include ‘Financial Instability’ Of Spouse: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that term “mental cruelty” is wide enough to take within its ambit the “financial instability” of a spouse.

“In the present case, it is easy to decipher the mental trauma as the appellant [wife] 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. Such kind of financial instability is bound to result in mental anxiety on account of husband being not settled in any business or profession which resulted in other vices, can be termed as a constant source of mental cruelty to the appellant. The term “mental cruelty” is wide enough to take within its ambit the “financial instability”” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

While granting divorce to a wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband, the bench said that husband’s financial instability is bound to result in mental anxiety to the wife, which also resulted in other vices, can be termed as a constant source of mental cruelty to her.

The court was dealing with an appeal filed by the wife challenging a family court order dismissing her petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. The parties got married in 1989 and parted ways in 1996 after residing together for seven years.

It was her case that at the time of marriage, the husband’s parents represented that their son had a good financial status and that they owned a two and a half storeyed bungalow. However, she subsequently came to know that he was not a graduate, had no job as represented and that the only money he used to get was from his mother.

She alleged that the husband and his family started making demands for money after the marriage. She claimed that she suffered from cruelty and that she was deserted by the husband for more than two years prior to filing of the divorce petition by her.

The court observed that it was “easy to decipher” the mental trauma as the wife was working and the husband was not and that there was a huge disparity in their financial status.

“While the respondent has asserted that he made several efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home, there is no evidence to show that he made any sincere efforts of bringing back the appellant. Be that as it may, it cannot be overlooked and ignored that the parties have been living separately since 1996,” the court said.

It added that the very fact that the parties have been living separately since November 1996 and no conciliation had taken place for the past about 27 years, proves that the parties were unable to sustain their matrimonial relationship.

“For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company and of conjugal relationship can be interpreted only as amounting to mental cruelty,” the court said.

Furthermore, the bench observed that a dead relationship only brings pain and agony and therefore, it cannot be a party to perpetuation of such mental cruelty.

“Therefore, such situation of separation of more than 27 years since December, 1996 is a ground for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955,” the court said.

It added, “It can be fairly concluded from the entire compendium of facts that the respondent had separated from the appellant in 1996 and he had no intention to resume the matrimonial ties. We, therefore, find that the respondent had separated with an intent to not resume the matrimonial relationship for a period of more than two years prior to the filing of this petition. We, thus also hold that the appellant is also entitled to divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, 1955.”