The Bombay High Court (HC) has ruled that a spouse's attempts to end their life or threaten other family members of their spouse constitute cruelty and are grounds for divorce. The wife had filed an appeal against the cruelty-based divorce order, which the court was examining.
Justice R M Joshi's single bench ruled, "The husband has not only claimed that his wife threatened to put him and his family in jail by committing suicide, but that attempt was actually made."
A spouse's act would be considered so cruel that it would be grounds for a divorce decree. In any event, a review of the available information demonstrates that the Trial Court's decision to award a dissolution of marriage, which the First Appellate Court affirmed, is compatible with that decision. Therefore, there is no perversity in the aforementioned findings that would conflict with them.
Advocate M. P. Tripathi represented the appellant, and Advocate Kshitij Surve represented the respondent.
Details of the Case:
In 2009, the Respondent and the Appellant were married. In the husband's case, the wife's parents would regularly visit their residence after the marriage and would meddle in their marital affairs. According to a claim, the wife left the marital residence without warning one day in 2010 and proceeded to her parents' house, where he was insulted when he followed her.
She later gave birth to their daughter, and the husband was insulted when he came to visit her home with family. The husband further claimed that the wife had falsely accused his father of being too modest. She was also accused of threatening to commit suicide and put her spouse and his family members in jail. After considering both oral and written evidence, the Trial Court decided that the husband had the right to request a divorce because the wife had treated him cruelly.
The wife's attorney argued that the claimed cruelty was insufficient justification for a divorce decree. He argued that any accusation of cruelty that is not substantive in nature could not be used to justify a divorce decree.
The husband's attorney contended that after the wife attempted suicide and cross-examination was requested, the court was adjourned. The wife then arrived in court with Mehandi on her hand to conceal the evidence of her attempted suicide. He claimed that it was more than enough to show that the Trial Court considered both the wife's actions and the evidence in the file when issuing the divorce order.
The Court believed that the evidence presented by the husband, his father, and one additional witness - the father's friend - more than adequately demonstrated that the husband's argument was supported by strong evidence. On the other hand, the wife was unable to provide an explanation for the accusation against the husband's father without filing a complaint to the police. It came to the conclusion that there was ample evidence of cruelty. As a result, the appeal was denied.
Share
Tweet
