Having Different Religious Beliefs And Not Performing Religious Duties Per Se Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court
While dealing with a divorce case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties per se would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient to severe a marital tie. A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that fasting or not fasting on “Karwachauth” may be an individual...
While dealing with a divorce case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties per se would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient to severe a marital tie.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that fasting or not fasting on “Karwachauth” may be an individual choice and if dispassionately considered, may not be termed as an act of cruelty.
The court made the observations while dismissing a wife's appeal against a family court order granting divorce on the ground of cruelty by her in a divorce petition filed by the husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The parties got married in April 2009 and separated in 2011. They resided together for one year and three months.
While rejecting wife's appeal, the court observed that the husband had proved that the wife had left the matrimonial home in January 2010 and returned after 47 days, for which there was no explanation forthcoming from her. It also noted that the wife did not deny the fact that she was away from the matrimonial home for 147 days.
Furthermore, the bench also said that the wife's act of removing vermillion from her forehead and claiming herself to be a widow, when the husband developed a slip disc in April 2011, instead of taking care of him, was an “ultimate act of rejection of matrimonial relationship.”
On husband's claim that on the first Karwachauth, the wife refused to keep the fast on a petty reason of her mobile being not recharged by him, the court said:
“…when coupled with the conduct of the appellant/wife and in the circumstances as proved by the respondent/husband in the present case, it is established that non-conforming with the prevalent rituals in Hindu culture, which symbolizes love and respect for the husband as well as the matrimonial relationship, fortifies the irresistible conclusion that appellant/wife had no respect for the respondent/husband and their marital bond. It also reflects that the appellant/wife had no intention to continue her marriage with the respondent/husband.”
The bench further said that nothing can be a more harrowing experience for a husband than to see his wife act as a widow during his lifetime, that too in a situation where he was seriously injured and expected nothing more than care and compassion from his significant other half.
“Undeniably, such conduct of the appellant/wife can only be termed as an act of extreme cruelty towards the respondent/husband,” the court said.
It added that the dead relationship between the parties had become infested with acrimony, irreconcilable differences and protracted litigations and any insistence to continue the same would only be perpetuating further cruelty upon both them.
“We, therefore, find that the appellant/wife has acted with cruelty towards the respondent/husband and divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955 has been rightly granted,” the court said.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1323