Jahanvi Agarwal
Recently, the Delhi High Court has ruled that where there is no chance of reconciliation between husband and wife, and the husband living with another woman long after his separation from his wife, will not amount to cruelty.
According to a division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, the husband may have found his peace by living with another woman but this cannot prevent him from getting a divorce from his wife after such a long separation with little chance of reconciliation.
The Court observed that:
“Even if it is accepted that the respondent-husband has started living with another woman and has two sons during the pendency of divorce petition, that in itself, cannot be termed as cruelty in the peculiar circumstances of this case when the parties have not been co-habiting since 2005. After such long years of separation with no possibility of re-union, the respondent husband may have found his peace and comfort by living with another woman, but, that is a subsequent event during the pendency of the divorce petition and cannot disentitle the husband from divorce from the wife on the proven grounds of cruelty.”
It was also stated that the respondent-husband, the woman, and the children would all be responsible for the consequences of such a relationship.
A woman’s plea to overturn the divorce order granted to her husband by a family court on the basis of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 was denied by the court.
The couple had got married on December 3, 2003 but disputes soon arose and they started living separately in 2005.
The husband alleged that the woman repeatedly caused issues for him and even had her brother and other family members beat him up. It was revealed that the wife and members of her family had also been found guilty of offences under Section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The appellant’s wife stated that while they had a luxurious wedding, the husband nevertheless made several demands. She said that she was given some medicines by her mother-in-law with the assurance that a son would be born, but they were intended to abort her pregnancy.
After considering the case, the court observed that, though the wife had said that she had been the victim of cruelty and harassment because of the dowry, she had not been able to provide evidence to support her claims, which thus amounted to an act of cruelty.
According to the Court, the woman first claimed that her husband had a second marriage and two sons only in the appeal. But the Bench also noted that no particular information or evidence regarding the purported second marriage was provided in the records or in the police reports.
As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the trial court’s divorce judgment.
Diary Number: 236/2018
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna