Keywords: wife, insisting, living separately, husband’s family, cruelty
The Delhi High Court has stated that it might be viewed as an act of cruelty if a wife insists on living apart from her husband’s family without a legitimate reason.
After the wife also said she had no objections to the divorce, a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna made the comment while dissolving a marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
“…the respondent has not been able to show any justifiable reason for her insistence to have separate residence, however, this is brought forth from an out-of-court settlement which the parties have entered into to live separately but thereafter, she went back to live in the matrimonial home with other family members. The only inference that can be drawn is that her insistence to live separately from the other family members was whimsical and had no justifiable reason. Such persistent insistence can only be termed as an act of cruelty,” the order stated.
The Court cited the 2016 ruling in Narendra v. K Meena by the Supreme Court, which stated, “it is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife.”
“In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where upon getting married or attaining majority; the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, the wife is expected to be a part of the family of the husband after her marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family and husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she should never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live with her separately,” the apex court verdict had stated.
The husband’s request for a divorce was denied in a family court order that was the subject of an appeal before the High Court. The husband alleged that his wife had abandoned and treated him cruelly.
The pair had two kids together after getting married in November 2000. The wife left the marital residence in 2003 but later came back. But she departed once more in July 2007.
In its ruling, the family court concluded that there was no proof to back up the assertion that the woman had abandoned her husband’s business without good cause. The family court further stated that the husband had failed to show that his wife intended to cease their cohabitation permanently.
However, the High Court determined that the wife’s insistence on living apart from the rest of the family was irrational and unsupported.
It stated that the husband had been denied conjugal privileges starting in 2007 because the wife had not carried out her end of the bargain.
The wife’s admission before the High Court that she had no desire to reconcile with her husband and had no objection to the divorce being granted was also noted by the justices.
“Prolonged deprivation of conjugal rights coupled with the statement of the respondent in the Court that she has no intention to join the company of the appellant and has no objection to the grant of divorce, not only reinforces that such deprivation has resulted in mental cruelty to the appellant, but also reveals that the respondent/wife has no intention whatsoever to resume the matrimonial relationship,” the Court noted.
As a result, the Court granted the husband’s request for a divorce and ended the marriage.
Written by: Sakshi Sinha, College: KIIT School of Law, Semester: 6th an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments