Spoilt honeymoon held as ground for divorce by Delhi High Court

NEW DELHI: A spoilt honeymoon and subjecting the husband and his family to “worst kind of mental cruelty” by levelling false accusations, have been held as grounds for divorce in a case by the Delhi High Court.

The High Court has dubbed the case as an “exception” in which “the marriage could not take off right from inception” between the couple who were in the age group of 30 plus at the time of marriage and were “quite mature”.

While allowing dissolution of their 12-year-old wedlock, it noted that the husband and wife returned with “bitter memories and a spoiled honeymoon” in which she had resisted consummation of marriage and later subjected him and his family to mental cruelty by levelling false accusations.

The remarks were made in the judgement by a bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani, which dismissed the plea of a woman who had challenged the verdict of a trial court allowing the man’s petition seeking dissolution of their marriage on grounds of cruelty.

“The respondent/husband was able to establish that during their honeymoon not only consummation of marriage was resisted by her, even thereafter causing embarrassment and humiliation accusations have been made against him and his entire family,” the bench noted in its judgement.

The bench said the conduct of the woman was such that it was not possible for the man to bear such kind of cruelty.

“It is a marriage which could not take off right from inception as the worst kind of mental cruelty was faced by the husband during his honeymoon and thereafter. All his efforts to save the marriage by arranging various meetings, visiting the parental home of the wife...could not save this marriage,” the bench said.

“It is not difficult to conceive of a non-adult 16 or 17-year-old member of a household who can aid or abet the commission of acts of domestic violence,” a bench of justice Kurien Joseph and justice Rohinton Nariman said in the order passed on October 6.

There have been growing complaints about the abuse of the law at the hands of daughters-in-law to put pressure on husbands, especially in seeking a hefty divorce settlement.

The domestic violence act came into force in 2005 to protect women from physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse at home.

Und er the act, an offender can be prevented from selling his house or businesses or both to ensure the victim is not left to fend for herself.

The benefit, however, was not available to a woman if her daughter-in-law harassed her. The court’s decision fixes the anomaly.

The court said “adult male” was not only an offending expression but also rejected the popular belief that juveniles couldn’t harass the elders, rejecting a woman’s challenge to a Bombay high court order that said daughter-in-laws, too, could be tried for domestic violence.

Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, who argued for the mother-in-law in the apex court, said the order had wider ramifications. “Technically, now even a daughter can take her mother to court,” she said.

In the case of a wife complaining of domestic violence, the husband’s relatives, including his mother and sisters, could be “arrayed as respondents (accused) and effective orders passed against them but in the case of a mother-in-law or sisterin-law who is an aggrieved person, the respondent can only be an ‘adult male person’”, the bench said.

The court gave multiple examples and said the words “adult male person” restricted the law, which was not providing equal protection to the other women of a household.