Wife Pressurising Husband To Fulfil Whimsical Dreams Beyond His Financial Reach Sufficient Mental Strain: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce
While upholding divorce of a couple on the ground of cruelty by wife, the Delhi High Court has observed that pressurising the husband to fulfil “distant and whimsical dreams” not within his financial reach may create a sense of “persistent dissatisfaction” which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life. A division bench of...
While upholding divorce of a couple on the ground of cruelty by wife, the Delhi High Court has observed that pressurising the husband to fulfil “distant and whimsical dreams” not within his financial reach may create a sense of “persistent dissatisfaction” which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a wife should not be a constant reminder of one's financial limitations and said that one must tread carefully between the needs, wants and desires.
The bench dismissed an appeal moved by a wife challenging a family court order granting her divorce from the husband on the ground of cruelty by her and for no restitution of conjugal rights for one year after passing of the decree to that effect.
Upholding the divorce, the court observed that various incidents narrated by the husband towards the overall conduct and a “non-adjusting attitude” of the wife, who lacked maturity to even sort out the differences with him, led to the “irresistible conclusion” that such conduct was bound to cause a grave apprehension in his mind, disrupting his mental equilibrium.
“Though these incidents may seem to be innocuous, insignificant or trifling when considered independently, but when such conduct prevails over a period of time, it is bound to create mental stress of the kind, which makes it impossible for the parties to survive in their matrimonial relationship…,” the court said.
It added: “We therefore conclude that the learned Judge, Family Court, has rightly held that the respondent was subjected to cruelty, to grant divorce under Section 13 1 (ia) of the HMA.”
The bench also upheld the divorce under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides that in case there is no restitution of conjugal rights despite a decree under Section 9 for a period of one year, either party can seek dissolution of marriage.
“The very fact that Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, enures to the benefit of “either party” clearly implies that in case of non-compliance of a Decree under Section 9 of the HMA, either party is entitled to seek divorce on this ground and the Judgment Debtor cannot be precluded from exercising his right to avail the relief thereof. Section 23 cannot be interpreted in a way to completely render the remedy under Section 13 (1A) (ii) otiose,” the bench said.
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Mrinal Bharti, Mr. Manish Kumar Shekhari and Ms. Sanjana Srivastava, Advocates
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 130