Refusal to wear Sakha/Sindoor: Gauhati HC refuses to upturn earlier order, says that the statement was read out of context [Read Order]

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a review petition challenging an earlier order where the Court had observed that a wife's refusal to wear Sakha/Sindoor was indicative of her disinterest in continuing her relationship with her husband..Refusal to wear Sakha/Sindoor signifies her refusal to accept Marriage under Hindu Marriage Customs: Gauhati HC while allowing divorce plea .While dealing with the review plea, the Bench comprising Chief Ajai Lamba and Justice Soumitra Saikia stated that the review petitioner was "reading the statement out of context" and hinging her entire review on the statement..The Judges observed:."It appears that the review applicant is reading the statement in regard to the wife not wearing ‘sindoor’ out of context. The review application has been argued as if this was the only ground considered by the Court for dissolving the marriage, however as explained ... it is not so.".The Bench added that this was only one of the indicators the Court had taken into consideration to decide that the woman's husband was entitled to seek a divorce..Emphasizing that the Court primarily decided in the husband's favour because of her filing a case against him and his family, it was observed:."Surely, when the facts and circumstances and evidences are considered collectively, such statement (that she refuses to wear sakha/sindoor) given by the wife can also be considered for concluding that the marriage had irrevocably broken. It is in this sense that the evidence has been read."Gauhati High Court.In earlier proceedings before the High Court, both the husband (appellant) and the wife had traded charges of cruelty, with each alleging that the other had subjected them to cruelty..The wife argued that her husband and other members of his joint family harassed her for ‘dowry’ payments..On the other hand, the husband alleged that the wife had made repeated demands for him to live away from his family and accused him of impotency. He also submitted that she was indifferent and negligent towards him and members of his family..The challenged-judgment recorded that the wife filed criminal complaints under Sections 498A (cruelty to wife), 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 125 (Application for Maintenance) of the Criminal Procedure Code..The husband further claimed that his wife had agreed to drop the cases against him if he agreed to move away from home and live with her in “a separate accommodation." On his refusal to adhere to the terms of the “settlement”, the judgment records that she filed a criminal complaint for fraud against him..During the course of lower court proceedings, the appellant had adduced in his evidence that the wife had refused to wear ‘sakha and sindoor’ any more. Since the statement was not confronted by the wife, it remained an uncontroverted statement as far as the High Court was concerned..This added to the High Court's eventual conclusion that the husband's divorce plea should be allowed. .The Court observed that, "Under such circumstances compelling the appellant-husband to continue to be in matrimony with the respondent-wife may be construed to be harassment inflicted by the respondent upon the appellant and his family members.".In the latest round of proceedings, the Court reiterated these findings and dismissed the petition..Read the Judgment: