New Delhi: A wife’s “persistent insistence” on living separately from in-laws without a justifiable reason is “torturous” for the husband and is an act of cruelty, the Delhi High Court has said.
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, while granting divorce to an estranged couple, observed that unlike the West, in India, it is not usual for the son to get separated from his family and his wife becomes integral to it.
“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 court said.
The husband, in the present case, assailed a family court order refusing to grant divorce. He sought dissolution of marriage on several grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act, including that the wife was a “quarrelsome lady” who did not show respect to the elders at the matrimonial home and insisted that he reside separately from his parents.
“Normally, no husband would tolerate and would like to be separated from his parents and other family members. The persistent efforts of respondent wife to constrain the appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and would constitute an act of cruelty,” said the bench, also comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in a recent order.
“The respondent (wife) has not been able to show any justifiable reason for her insistence to have separate residence… 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 court stated.
It noted the Supreme Court has said in a decision that it is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from his parents at the instance of his wife.
The son has a moral and legal obligation to take care of and maintain his parents when they become old and, if his wife makes an attempt to deviate from the custom prevalent in the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that, the court added.
“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,” it observed.
The court said an acrimonious atmosphere at home cannot be a conducive environment for the parties to forge a cordial conjugal relationship and, the circumstances in the present case, including the elusive conduct of the wife over a period of time, is bound to be a source of mental cruelty.
Noting that the parties have had no matrimonial relationship since 2007 and the wife has made a statement that she has no intention to join the company of the appellant, the court proceeded to grant a decree of divorce.
“She submits that she has no objection, if the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, in view of above, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is hereby dissolved on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,” the court ruled.
