Wife Creates Matrimonial Profile : Bombay High Court Grants Husband Divorce On Grounds Of 'Mental Cruelty'

Justice GA Sanap held that the evidence on record proves that the respondent-wife inflicted upon the appellant-husband mental pain and sufferings which would make it impossible for him to live with her. It has been proved that the mental cruelty is such that it would in all probability cause injury to the health of the appellant, he added.

It was further held that the family court had failed to consider the wife's marriage profiles on two matrimonial websites while rejecting the man's divorce petition last year.

"On the basis of this document, it can be inferred that she wanted to get rid of the appellant and wanted to perform the second marriage," the court said in its ex-parte order.

Moreover, the court noted that the woman's conduct wasn't consistent with her written statement in which she claimed to be an "obedient wife" despite which her in-laws wanted to get rid of her.

Case before Court:

It was the husband's case that after their marriage in July, 2014 in Akola, he began living with his wife in Panjim as he was employed with at Goa. However, the woman insisted on living in Akola, and finally left his house within a year.

The wife had in turn filed several complaints in the police station, women's commission, and an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the family court, alleging a case under the Domestic Violence Act and another complaint under Section 498 of the CrPC, against him and his family members.

In 2020, while the family court had accepted that the wife had treated the man with cruelty, the court said it was not enough to cause reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the wife.

The husband thus approached High Court.

The appellant went on to point out that his wife had a matrimonial profile.

While passing an ex-parte order, the High Court observed that the man was left to fight divorce proceedings six years after the woman walked out of their marital home in 2015.

"The evidence clearly indicate that the respondent had no wish and desire to remain in company of the appellant. If the respondent had sincere wish and desire to save her marriage she would not have taken a conscious decision to perform the second marriage even before the final out come of the divorce petition. The evidence placed on record by the appellant coupled with the conduct of the respondent through-out and subsequent to the filling of the petition would prove beyond doubt that the respondent had made the life of the appellant miserable," said the Court.

The Court further noted that the wife had made "wild" and "unfounded" complaints against the respondent and the concerned Magistrate had rightly rejected the wife's domestic violence complaint on merits.

"It is further pertinent to note that the conduct of the respondent to perform the second marriage and not to lead the life with the appellant is writ large from the fact that she did not apply for restitution of conjugal rights…In our opinion, the appellant on the basis of cogent and concrete evidence has made out the case that he was made to suffer mental cruelty of high degree and therefore, he took a conscious decision to get separated from the respondent."