Wife Pressuring Husband To Separate From Family Amounts Cruelty, Ground For Divorce: Delhi HC
New Delhi: Delhi High Court ruled on Thursday that a wife persistently pressuring her husband to sever his bond with his family certainly amounts to cruelty. The practice, the court said, is also a ground for divorce. The court observed that the wife consistently telling the husband she does not wish to live in a joint family while pressuring for partition from his widowed mother and divorced sister is cruelty, Bar And Bench reports.
While hearing a divorce petition, the court also stated that a wife of publicly berating the husband at his workplace in the presence of his colleagues and superiors and repeated public humiliation and verbal abuse also amounts to mental cruelty.
Read Also: Wife Not Accountable For Husband’s Suicide Due To Her Illicit Relationship: Karnataka High Court
The observation was made by a division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. The bench dismissed the wife’s appeal in the divorce dispute, stating that the husband has succeeded in establishing the acts of cruelty attributable to the wife through consistent and corroborated testimony.
‘A wife’s act of giving repeated threats and filing police complaints against the husband and his family members is also cruelty which would constitute a ground for divorce,’ the court pointed out.
Read Also: ‘Husband Rich’: Court Hikes Wife’s Compensation To Rs 1 Crore From 5 Lakh For Domestic Violence
The court pointed out that in 2009, following he Respondent’s refusal to accede to the Appellant’s demand for separation, she publicly berated him at his workplace in the presence of colleagues and superiors, accusing him of neglect and of failing to prioritise her happiness, which the court observed amounted to mental cruelty.
“the Respondent has successfully demonstrated a sustained pattern of pressure, humiliation, threats, and alienation. Taken together, these acts go well beyond the “ordinary wear and tear of married life” and constitute mental cruelty of such gravity that the Respondent cannot reasonably be expected to endure them,” the Court added.
