High Court of Delhi

Jayanti v. Rakesh Mediratta

MANU/DE/2904/2016

27.10.2016

Family

Unsubstantiated allegations impacting moral character with perverse sexuality amounts to cruelty; ground for divorce

Appellant-wife is aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by Judge, whereby marriage between parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Judge had granted a decree of divorce on being satisfied that husband was subjected to mental cruelty within meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

It is an admitted situation that, wife while tendering her examination-in-chief by way of evidence omitted to refer any of the above accusations imputed against her husband. This omission, however, does not dilute act of cruelty committed by her for the reason that such accusations do form part of record. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, Supreme Court held that subsequent withdrawal of allegations by amending written statement by the spouse is of no consequence.

In view of Section 20(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allegations made in written statement and counter claim can be safely accepted and admitted as evidence of cruelty committed by wife. Pious relationship between a father and a daughter has been maligned by wife to such an extent that the wife is guilty of treating husband with worst form of mental cruelty. Nature of allegations made against husband which remained unsubstantiated, must have left an indelible mark on mind of the husband. No spouse can swallow such filthy allegations and also continue with the marital tie.

It appeared paradoxical that wife was not letting the husband to have physical contact but the husband was blamed for keeping condoms accessible to their eight years old daughter and also for waking up the daughter in the midnight to witness their sexual activity. The allegations of sexual perversity against the husband amounted to mental cruelty justifying a decree of divorce.

Wife inspite of making serious allegations against husband impacting his moral character with perverse sexuality did not even try to prove such allegations while tendering her affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. This leads to inference that such allegations were baseless. Wife herein has damaged very basis of fabric of this marital bond beyond repair. On dismissing the appeal, High Court found that, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree.

Relevant

Section 20(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate

Tags : Marriage Cruelty Dissolution

Share :