Wife's constant taunts about husband's financial limitations is cruelty, ground for divorce: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that constant taunts by wife about husband’s financial capacity and pressurising him to fulfill whimsical dreams beyond his financial reach will amount to mental cruelty entitling him to divorce..A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations."A wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations. Pressurizing spouse to fulfil distant and whimsical dreams clearly 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. One must tread carefully between the needs, wants and desires," the Court observed. It said that constant bickering and fights can cause stress in the mind and impact one’s mental well-being as well.“The various incidents narrated by the respondent (husband) towards the overall conduct and a non-adjusting attitude of the appellant (wife) who lacked maturity to even sort out the differences with the husband, leads to the irresistible conclusion that such conduct was bound to cause a grave apprehension in the mind of the respondent 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.”.In the detailed judgement pronounced on January 30, the Bench also said that the language of Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act makes it abundantly clear that the relief under Section 13 (1A) (ii) (decree of restitution of conjugal rights) is an absolute right and is independent of which party is the decree holder. “This is also evident from the language of under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the HMA which is to the effect that “either party”, which includes the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor, who can seek divorce in case of noncompliance of decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. If the Parliament intended that it is only the party in whose favour the restitution has been allowed, who can avail the remedy under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the HMA, then the language would have been accordingly used in the said Section,” the Court said.It added,“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 Court made the observations while dealing with a plea filed by a woman challenging a family court order allowing the husband's plea for divorce.The family court had granted divorce on grounds of cruelty and also after taking into account the fact that there was no restitution of conjugal rights for a period of one year even though a decree for the same was passed. It was the husband’s case that the wife forced him to move to Delhi from Haryana, set-up a separate house and taunted him for taking a loan of ₹8,000 from her parents.He said that the wife levelled allegations of him being in a relationship with another woman and that she dreamt of a high society life and refused to adjust to the limited resources which he could provide.The wife denied all the allegations arguing that they were false and concocted. She said that she has always been faithful to her husband and attended all her matrimonial obligations dutifully..After considering the case, the Court agreed with the family court’s conclusion that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty and also noted that there was no restitution of conjugal rights despite a decree to that effect.Hence, it rejected the appeal. .Advocate Ashok Sharma appeared for the wife.Husband was represented through advocates Mrinal Bharti, Manish Kumar Shekhari and Sanjana Srivastava. .[Read Judgment]