Time changes, and so do people. Marriage being regarded as the inseparable union of two individuals is history. A spouse, now, may seek a decree of divorce from his/her co-partner, “if things are not going well”. however, the grounds for such a petition for divorce must be reasonable and most prominently, under the purview of law.
Parties/spouses seeking divorce, sometimes, agree mutually for
the same, therefore cutting the time of the proceedings in allotment of a
decree of divorce in their favor. Though, the basic grounds for divorce are
settled in the Acts such as:
1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (strictly
applicable to Hindus)
2. Indian Divorce Act, 1869
3. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights) Act, 1986 (strictly for Muslim women only)
4. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939
5. Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Provisions in the above-mentioned Acts regarding ‘Divorce’ is
more or less the same, consisting of the following basic grounds:
1. Cruelty
2. Adultery
3. Desertion
4. Venereal disease
5. Mental disorder
6. Impotency
7. Respondent not heard of being alive for a long period
8. Mutual Consent: Consent of both the spouses for attaining divorce.
8 Most Unusual Ground For Seeking Divorce - India Seen In Recent
Times
1. 'Taking Loans In Wife's Name And Failed To Repay Them Amounts
To Cruelty'- Uttarakhand High Court, Granted Divorce
The Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Manpreet Verma Vs Brij Verma (First Appeal No. 133 of 2017) allowed a wife’s plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty, noting that the husband had repeatedly taken loans on the wife’s name knowing well that she had no source of income, and had failed to repay them, putting her in trouble.
In this case the high court took note that the respondent (husband) is in habit of taking loans and he also took loan in the name of wife i.e. appellant and he also made her guarantor in some loans. He failed to repay his loans and as a result, appellant faced embarrassment.
The Court observed that
" Taking of loan is neither an offence nor shameful act but failed to repay it may cause embarrassment, as lender comes to recover his loan by any means. It also maligns the reputation of a person is society. Appellant is a house wife. Respondent also took loan in the name of his wife / appellant and also made her guarantor. Appellant has no source of income and she was deserted by her husband. In such circumstance, it was very painful for her to live because she has no source of income but has to repay the loan."
And came to the conclusion that
" all the activities and conducts of the husband respondent are sufficient to establish the cruelty meted out by him to appellant-wife. " And accordingly Decree of divorce is granted.
2. Forcing Husband To Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To ’Cruelty’ and a ground for divorce - Supreme Court Granted Divorce
The Supreme Court in Narendra Vs K.Meena (CIVIL APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2008) has held that persistent effort of the wife to constrain her husband to be separated from the family constitutes an act of ‘cruelty’ to grant divorce.
The Supreme Court in this case observed that
"The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get separated from his family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually maintained from the income of the Appellant husband."
" 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, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family."
" A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income."
" In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her. "
" In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her husband separated from his family. "
"The averment of the Respondent was to the effect that the income of the Appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The said grievance of the Respondent is absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. "
"There is no other reason for which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from the family the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant. "
The Court opined that
"In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income."
" The persistent members of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of ‘cruelty’. "
The Supreme Court therefore granted divorce.
3. Calling Wife "Kali Kaluti" Amounts To Cruelty - Punjab and Haryana High Court Granted Divorce.
Source - This report
Source - This report
The Punjab and Haryana high
court in Radha vs Kamal
Singh (FAO-M-257 of 2015) has allowed a woman from Mahendergarh in
Haryana to divorce her husband on the ground of maltreatment and cruelty.
The court accepted her plea that she was compelled to stay away from her
husband because he would often taunt her about her skin colour by calling her "Kali Kaluti" in front of other people for not
preparing food for him and also had started demanding dowry as a result of which appellant
had to return to her parents' house. The father of the appellant had asked the
respondent and his family members to reconcile the matter but they threatened
to get the second marriage of the respondent solemnized.
The court reached at the conclusion that
"Wife has been able to
establish that she was maltreated and treated shabbily as a result of which she
was compelled to stay away from the matrimonial home," the court observed
in its order given recently."The evidence produced on record is held to be
good enough to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was treated with
mental and physical cruelty."
And accordingly, the marriage of the appellant -
applicant wife with respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce.
4. Wife’s False Allegations Of Infidelity Amounts To Cruelty - Delhi High Court Granted Divorce
The Delhi High Court in R Vs J (MAT.APP.NO. 62/2011) granted divorce to a man holding that his estranged wife’s false allegation of illicit relation between him and his widowed sister-in-law amounted to cruelty.
The petitioner-husband sought the decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the respondent on the ground that the respondent-wife was extremely suspicious towards him and soon after the death of the petitioner’s brother in the respondent’s suspicious nature went beyond all reason and tolerance when the respondent started accusing the petitioner of having an affair with the widow of his brother.
The respondent made such accusations not only in front of their children but also in front of his relatives, neighbours, police, friends and servants which resulted in feeling of deep anguish, disappointment and frustration in the petitioner.
The continuous course of abuse and humiliating treatment was calculated to torture and render the life of the petitioner miserable, and the continuous unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of the respondent affected the physical and mental health of the petitioner.
The wife, on the other hand, had vehemently opposed the assertions, and had pressed the same contentions of her husband having an extra-marital affair with his widowed sister-in-law.
Delhi high court opines that
“This Court agrees with the finding of the learned Trial Court that the respondent/wife has failed to prove any illicit relationship between the petitioner/husband and his widowed sister-in-law. The respondent has leveled false allegations of an illicit relationship between the petitioner and his widowed sister-in-law in the written statement which clearly amounts to cruelty.”
On the basis of this the court reached at the conclusion that
“This Court agrees that the respondent has
treated the petitioner with cruelty and the petitioner has neither
condoned the acts of cruelty nor cohabited with the respondent. This Court is
of the view that the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty. And accordingly divorce granted.”
5. Spoilt Honeymoon, Cruelty To In Laws Ground For Divorce - Delhi High Court Granted Divorce
The Delhi High Court in Anu Seth Vs Sunil Seth(MAT.APP(F.C.)68/2015) granted divorce to the husband on the ground of a
spoilt honeymoon and subjecting the husband and his family to "worst kind
of mental cruelty" by leveling false accusations.
While allowing dissolution of their 12-year-old
wedlock, it noted that the husband and wife returned with "bitter memories
and a spoiled honeymoon" in which she had resisted consummation of
marriage and tried her best to avoid him in the process. Not only that, she even threatened to
commit suicide if he dare touch her body against her mood, willingness and
consent.
"In the case of arranged marriages where both the spouses are in the age group of 30 plus, honeymoon period is the best time to know, understand and come close to each other. This case is an exception in the sense that just a day after the marriage the parties left for their honeymoon to Shimla and returned with bitter memories and a spoiled honeymoon." the court observed.
"The husband was able to establish that during their honeymoon not only consummation of marriage was resisted by her, even thereafter causing embarrassment and humiliation accusations have been made against him and his entire family. " The bench noted in its judgment
The Court observed
"It is a marriage which could not take off right from inception as the worst kind of mental cruelty was faced by the husband during his honeymoon and thereafter. All his efforts to save the marriage by arranging various meetings, visiting the parental home of the wife....could not save this marriage."
The Court opined that
" We are of the considered opinion that the conduct of the wife in the instant case was such that it was not possible for the husband to bear such type of cruelty." And accordingly divorce was granted.
6. 'No Toilet At Home Amounts To Cruelty' - Family Court In Rajasthan Granted Divorce
A family court in Rajasthan’s Bhilawara district granted a woman divorce while ruling that having no toilet at home is cruelty to women.
The woman, who was married to a family in Atun village of Bhilwara district in 2011 had moved a divorce petition to the family court in 2015 on the grounds that the house of her husband didn’t have any toilet.
The woman had said in her application that when she told her in-laws about the difficulties she had to face while going to defecate in the open. But after repeated assurances, her husband and in laws failed to build a toilet and has been forcing her to defecate in the open.
Due to the absence of a toilet in her marital home, the woman was living at her parent’s house for the last two years
Commenting on the ‘mental torture’ that women have to deal with while going to defecate in the open in absence of toilets in their homes, justice Rajendra Kumar Sharma termed it as a disgrace for the society.
“ Has it ever pained us that our mothers and sisters have to go to defecate in the open? Women in villages have to wait for dark to venture out in order to relieve and as a result has to bear with physical pain,” justice Sharma said in the judgment.
The judgment further added that not having toilets in
homes is a disgrace in the 21st century.
“ It is an irony that people who spend a lot of money
on alcohol, tobacco and mobile phones, don’t have toilets in their homes,” the
judgment read.
The court had also asked the family of the
petitioner’s in-laws to provide evidence of toilet in their house which they
failed to furnish.
The family court finding it amounts to cruelty to the
wife granted divorce.
7. Wife's Demand For Excessive Sex, Amounts To Cruelty - Family Court Granted Divorce
A man, who sought separation
from his wife alleging that she was aggressive and autocratic with an
insatiable appetite for sex was granted divorce by a family
court in Mumbai.
The husband alleged that she used to force him into having unnatural sex and whenever he tried to resist it, she would abuse him following which he had to succumb to her pressure and persistent demands.
He told the court that he
worked in three shifts leaving him very tired, and even then he was compelled
to satisfy her 'lust'.
The woman even went to the
extent of threatening him that if her demands are not fulfilled, she will go to
another man, without caring for his emotions and feelings, the court was told.
Even when he hospitalised for a
stomach ache and operated for appendicitis and the doctors advised
him to stay away from any physical relationship for a while, the wife kept up
with her sexual demands, even as his health deteriorated for lack of rest, the
petition submitted.
In the petition, he said that
it was intolerable for him to bear any more atrocities and that he also
apprehended danger to his life and limb.
He said his wife has made his
life horrible with her "cruel behaviour" and her "excessive
prank for sex" has made it difficult for him to live together with her
under one roof.
Judge Rao allowed the petition
and dissolved the man's marriage.
8. Not Allowing Wife To Wear
Jeans Amounts To Cruelty - Family Court In Mumbai Granted Divorce
Objecting to wife wearing kurta
and jeans and forcing her to wear saree amounts to cruelty inflicted by husband
and can be a ground to seek divorce, a family court in Mumbai has ruled.
The wife pleaded that after marriage in December 2010,
her husband did not buy her any clothes and therefore she had purchased Kurta
and Jeans from her salary earnings. However, the husband did not allow her to
wear them, saying she should wear only sarees.
In her order was passed on June 24, Principal Judge of
Family Court, Dr Laxmi Rao, granted divorce to the wife on the ground of
cruelty as defined under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
"In view of the averments made in the petition
which have gone unchallenged, it can be said that the petitioner has proved her
case, hence, she can be granted divorce as prayed by her. Her plea that she was
restrained from wearing jeans and Kurta amounts to cruelty as defined under the
Act," the judge held
The wife further alleged that her husband and in-laws
had asked her to bring Rs 1 lakh from her house or face dire consequences. They
also asked her to quit her job but she had refused to toe their line.
The wife alleged that she was tortured and humiliated
as a result of which she suffered mental depression and her life became
miserable. She also alleged that her in-laws harassed her on one pretext or the
other and warned that if she failed to bring dowry she would face dire
consequences.
"I find that she has made
out a case for divorce as contemplated under section 27(1)(d) of Special
Marriage Act, which contemplates that a divorce can be granted if respondent
has treated the petitioner with cruelty," the judge observed. And
therefore granted divorce.
Thus the basic idea behind divorce is to refrain the
spouses from unnecessary cohabiting together, when there is no affection left
between them. It is better for two individuals to live apart peacefully than to
live together violently. Though, the Acts regarding Marriages and Divorces are
the result of the culture (mostly religious) prevailing in an area since a long
time. The provisions in any of such Act are inscribed by way of ‘reasons’
coupled with a blend of ‘prevailing culture’ and ‘change in mindsets’ of
people. That is to say, the amendments to the Acts must be done periodically,
so as to upkeep the provisions of the same, so that the reasonability of the
statutes remains intact and shall not be held on frivolous grounds.
