You are currently viewing ๐—œ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฆ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—Ÿ๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ ๐—•๐—ฒ๐˜†๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ฟ ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜€ & ๐—œ๐—ป๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—œ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฏ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—–๐—ฟ๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜๐˜†, ๐—ฅ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐—›๐—–

๐—œ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฆ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—Ÿ๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ ๐—•๐—ฒ๐˜†๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ฟ ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜€ & ๐—œ๐—ป๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—œ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฏ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—–๐—ฟ๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜๐˜†, ๐—ฅ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐—›๐—–

In a recent judgement from April 2022, the Madras High Court allowed a manโ€™s divorce from his wife on the grounds of cruelty, overturning a family court ruling dismissing his earlier plea.
The order was issued by a bench of Justices T Raja and D Bharatha Chakravarthy after the petitioner appealed the lower courtโ€™s decision.

During cross-examination, the respondent/wife admitted that she did not cooperate with her husband in their physical relationship. The bench stated that it is an accepted law that refusal to have intercourse without any physical infirmity or other reasonable reason in a marriage would amount to mental cruelty.

Moreover, the wife was aware that money was moved to her mother and sisterโ€™s bank accounts for the transfer of family property.

The couple also adopted a boy after their marriage in 1997 because the respondent/wife did not have any biological children.

The Court ruled that the respondent/wife hiding the said factum deposed before the Family Court that the said transaction was simply for the purpose of saving taxโ€ (to be paid by her husband). Inducing the other spouse to live beyond their means and inviting indebtedness, in our considered opinion, would amount to cruelty, which can be defined as a lack of sympathies for the other spouseโ€™s wellbeing, happiness, and security,.

The Court said that the respondent/actions wifeโ€™s would indicate that she is more concerned with her husbandโ€™s assets and wealth than with demonstrating love and compassion, and such a callous attitude โ€œwould amount to cruelty.

The appellant was granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Leave a Reply