‘Can’t live fearing character assassination’: Court grants businessman divorce after a 30-year marriage, cites wife’s cruelty
In doing so, the court observed that "a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to continue a matrimonial relationship under constant fear of character assassination and false implications."
The plea claimed despite she was provided an alternative flat since 2012, she "forcibly occupied" petitioner's home in pandemic times "under false assurances," making his "life unbearable."
A FAMILY court in Mumbai recently allowed a plea by a 55-year-old businessman and granted him divorce after three decades of marriage, ruling that his estranged wife’s conduct amounted to “sustained mental and physical cruelty.”
In doing so, the court observed that “a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to continue a matrimonial relationship under constant fear of character assassination and false implications.”
It added that the respondent estranged wife’s conduct of “levelling false, reckless, and unsubstantiated allegations of serious nature is itself established to be mental cruelty.”
Judge Devendra M Upadhye last month passed an order on husband’s plea seeking grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The court order was made available on Tuesday.
The petitioner had claimed years of physical, mental, social and economic distress and cruelty inflicted by the respondent wife within the household.
Advocates Hare Krishna Mishra and Manjunath Hegde for the petitioner argued that there was no marital intimacy for 18 years and their client endured the wife’s “physical, mental, social and economic cruelty” for decades, tolerating it for the children and aging parents.
“Repeated unfounded allegations cause serious mental agony, emotional trauma, and humiliation,” the lawyers argued and sought dissolution of marriage.
Story continues below this ad
The respondent wife, through advocate Yogendra Kanchan, denied contentions and instead countered with husband’s alleged alcohol abuse, her abandonment without maintenance, and child alienation by petitioner’s mother.
The couple got married in June 1996 and two children were born out of the wedlock. The court referred to “abnormal, aggressive and violent behaviour” during her first pregnancy in 1997, noting assaults on the petitioner and his mother without provocation.
In May 1998, she “threatened to kill the infant” and it was further noted the wife gave frequent suicide threats, after which she was sent to live with her parents in another city and the child stayed back and her aggression escalated after her return. The petitioner claimed the wife refused psychiatric help and threatened fake cases against him, prompting him to lodge police complaint followed by divorce plea in 2022.
The plea claimed despite she was provided an alternative flat since 2012, she “forcibly occupied” petitioner’s home in pandemic times “under false assurances,” making his “life unbearable.”
Story continues below this ad
After perusing submissions, testimonies, medical reports and material on record, the judge found “credibility” in petitioner’s case and in contrast, said the respondent woman “failed to prove her allegations by cogent and reliable evidence” and could not examine single independent witness including neighbour, relative or others to corroborate the claims. The court said she incorrectly attempted to portray the petitioner as cruel and irresponsible.
The judge added that allegations by the respondent wife “attack the honour, dignity, and reputation of the petitioner and “are of the gravest nature” and amount to “serious imputations affecting the social standing and character of the petitioner.”
“The evidence clearly establishes that the respondent’s behaviour destroyed the emotional stability of the household, caused deep psychological harm to the children, endangered the well-being of dependent parents, and placed the petitioner under unbearable mental and emotional strain,” court observed, adding that “cohabitation had become impossible due to sustained and grave cruelty.”
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
