Difficult To Digest That Divorce Would Be "Stigmatic" When Parties Are Educated : Delhi High Court

While allowing a wife's plea seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (Aug. 13) rejected the husband's contention that the grant of divorce would bring “dishonour” and “stigma” upon himself and his family.

The Court said that it is difficult to digest the argument that a grant of divorce would be stigmatic for either of the spouses when both are educated, and it would be in their interest to bring an end to a marriage rather than suffering from persistent mental agony and trauma.

The case relates to where firstly the husband had agreed to the grant of divorce by mutual consent because the parties have been residing separately for the last twelve years and the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond repair on account of the said prolonged separation.

However subsequently, the husband resented granting divorce to her wife. The justification given by the husband for stepping back from granting divorce was that the grant of divorce would bring “dishonour” and “stigma” upon himself and his family.

Observing the explanation so offered by the husband to be improper, the bench comprising Justices Amit Bansal and Rajiv Shakdher observed:

“In the written submissions filed by the respondent, the justification given for resisting the grant of divorce is that it would bring “dishonour” and “stigma” upon himself and his family. We fail to appreciate this submission. In our view, in the present times, there can be no “dishonour” or “stigma” brought upon the contesting spouses or their families upon the grant of divorce. In the present case, both parties are well educated and therefore, it is difficult to digest the argument that grant of divorce would be stigmatic for either of the spouses. On the contrary, the persistent mental agony and trauma that a sour marriage causes upon the parties and their families, is much heavier to bear.”

Since the mediation proceedings also failed to work out any possibility of repairing the broken-down marriage, the Court held that any further continuation of the marriage would cause trauma to the parties and would amount to the perpetuation of mental cruelty.

Resultantly, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent shall stand dissolved under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Case Details: RUCHI WADHAWAN VERSUS AMIT WALI, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 261/2023 & CM APPL. 46373/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 901

Click here to read/download the order