Mental cruelty wide enough to have financial instability in its ambit: Delhi HC grants divorce to woman

“Such kind of financial instability is bound to result in mental anxiety on account of the husband being not settled in any business or profession which resulted in other vices, which can be termed as a constant source of mental cruelty to the appellant. The term mental cruelty is wide enough to take within its ambit the financial instability,” said the bench.

Allowing the woman’s appeal, the High Court granted divorce to her on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The woman had challenged the 2007 order of the family court, which had dismissed her divorce sought on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, before the High Court. The man and the woman got married on April 9, 1989, and did not have a child. They lived together for almost seven years and parted ways on November 27, 1996.

The woman claimed her father-in-law had assured her at the time of her wedding they had no demand for dowry and would respect her, but he died just a month later. After that, the woman claimed, her husband and his family started harassing her and making demands for money, for investing in the husband’s business, and also started claiming a house for separate residences of the couple.

The High Court said the woman’s claims could not be proved by evidence and which was rightly observed by the family court.

“The appellant herself has revealed the true reasons for discord… She was qualified and educated and was working in an MNC before her marriage. On the other hand, at the time of marriage, it was represented that the respondent (husband) was a graduate and was working in an export house and was earning Rs 3,000/- per month. He had income from other sources which added up to Rs.10,000/- per month,” the bench said.

“However, the respondent, as per his own admission, could not stabilise or establish a regular income. It is apparent from the assertions of the appellant that the respondent used to remain at home since he had no regular job or source of income and indulged in vices of alcohol consumption and gambling. It is but natural that with this kind of financial disparity, differences between the parties were bound to crop up,” added the bench.

Observing that mental cruelty cannot be defined in a straight way, the High Court said it was apparent from the couple’s testimonies that the woman was unable to adjust in the family where the husband was not earning and was financially unstable, aside from being dependent upon his mother for income.

The woman claimed her husband had levelled allegations of an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law and others, to which the bench noted that her husband “vaguely” replied that there was constant interference from her brothers-in-law and other family members. Noting that this lent credence to her testimony, the HC said there “can be no greater cruelty than making false allegations against the chastity of a woman”.

The High Court also noted the man and the woman had been living separately since November 1996 and there was conciliation for around 27 years, proving they were unable to sustain their matrimonial relationship. The court noted although the husband claimed that he made efforts to reconcile with the woman and bring her back to the matrimonial home, “no cogent efforts are evident from the evidence”.