Wife Creates Matrimonial Profile: Bombay High Court grants Husband Divorce on Ground of “Mental Cruelty”.

Relying on evidence and instances of high degree of “mental cruelty” meted out by a wife to her 36-year-old husband, the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench granted him a divorce.

Hon’ble Justice GA Sanap held that the evidence on record proves that the respondent-wife inflicted mental pain and sufferings upon the appellant-husband which would make it impossible for him to live with her. It has been proved that the mental cruelty is such that it would in all probability cause injury to the health of the appellant, he added.

It was further held that the Family court had failed to consider the wife’s marriage profiles on two matrimonial websites while rejecting man’s divorce petition last year.

“On the basis of this evidence, it can be inferred that she wanted to get rid of the appellant and wanted to perform the second marriage the court said in its ex-parte order.

Case before Court:

It was the husband’s-appellant case that after their marriage in July, 2014 in Akola, he started living with his wife-respondent in Panjim as he was working in Goa. However, the woman insisted on living in Akola, and finally left his house within a year of marriage.

The wife had filed several complaints in the police station, women’s commission, and an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the family court, criminal case under the Domestic Violence Act and another complaint under Section 498 of the CrPC, against him and his family members.

In the year 2020, while the family court had accepted that the wife had treated the man with cruelty, the court said it was not enough to cause reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the wife.

The husband thereafter approached High Court against the order of the Family Court.
The appellant raised and pointed out that his wife had a matrimonial profile.

While passing an ex-parte order, the High Court observed that the man was left to fight divorce proceedings six years after the woman walked out of their marital home in 2015.

“The evidence clearly indicate that the respondent did not wish and desire to remain in company of the appellant. If the respondent had genuine wish and desire to save her marriage she would not have taken a conscious decision to perform the second marriage even before the final out come of the divorce petition. The evidence placed on record by the appellant coupled with the conduct of the respondent through-out and subsequent to the filing of the petition would prove beyond doubt that the respondent had made the life of the appellant miserable,” said the Court.

The Court further noted that the wife had made “wild” and “unfounded” complaints against the respondent and the concerned Magistrate had rightly rejected the wife’s domestic violence complaint on merits.

“It is further pertinent to note that the conduct of the respondent to perform the second marriage and not to lead the life with the appellant is writ large from the fact that she did not apply for restitution of conjugal rights…In our opinion, the appellant on the basis of cogent and concrete evidence has made out the case that he was made to suffer mental cruelty of high degree and therefore, he took a conscious decision to get separated from the respondent.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

× Whatsapp Chat