Persistent insistence of wife to stay away from family cruelty towards husband: High Court

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has observed that the wife's "persistent insistence" on staying away from her in-laws without any valid reason amounts to a "torturous" and cruel act on the part of the husband. A bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Nina Bansal Krishna, while granting divorce to the estranged couple, observed that unlike in western countries, it is not common in India for a son to be separated from his family. Ordinarily, without any reasonably strong reason, she should never insist that her husband go away from the family and live separately with her, the court said.

'Wife did not respect elders'

In the present case, the husband challenged the order of the Family Court refusing to grant divorce . He sought dissolution of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act on several grounds, including that the wife was a 'quarrelsome woman' who did not respect elders in the in-laws' house and insisted that she (the husband) ) remained separated from his parents. In a recent order, the bench said, 'Ordinarily, no husband will tolerate and will not want to be separated from his parents and other family members. The persistent attempt by the respondent wife to compel the appellant to separate from the family would be torturing to the husband and would amount to an act of cruelty.'

'Insistence to stay away from the family is cruelty'

The court said, 'The defendant (wife) could not give any reasonable reason for the insistence of living separately. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that her insistence on living separately from other family members was her own volition and there was no valid reason for the same. Such persistent stubbornness can only be termed as an act of cruelty. The bench noted that the Supreme Court has in a judgment said that it is not a normal practice or a desirable culture in India for a Hindu son to be separated from his parents at the behest of his wife.

'Expectation of wife to be a part of the family'

The court said that the son has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain his parents when they are old and if his wife deviates from the customs prevalent in the society. If he tries to do so, he must have a valid reason for the same. The bench said, “People in India generally do not follow the western ideology, where the son is separated from the family on marriage or attaining majority. Under normal circumstances, the wife is expected to become a part of the husband's family after marriage. The court observed that the acrimonious atmosphere at home cannot be conducive for both the parties to have a cordial matrimonial relationship.

The High Court approved the divorce application.

The Court observed that in the present case the circumstances including the conduct of the wife over a period of time were bound to be a source of mental cruelty. The bench, while granting divorce, noted that there was no marital relationship between the parties since 2007 and the wife has given a statement that she has no intention of living with the appellant. The bench said, “The woman has stated that she has no objection if the present appeal is accepted. Thus, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is terminated on the ground of cruelty and abandonment under Section 13(a)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.' (Language)