Read Time: 05 minutes
The court highlighted “Both parties are well educated and therefore, it is difficult to digest the argument that grant of divorce would be stigmatic for either of the spouses. On the contrary, the persistent mental agony and trauma that a sour marriage causes upon the parties and their families, is much heavier to bear”.
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, granted divorce to a couple noting that in contemporary times, the grant of divorce does not bring ‘dishonour’ or ‘stigma’ upon the spouses or their families.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held, “In our view, in the present times, there can be no “dishonour” or “stigma” brought upon the contesting spouses or their families upon the grant of divorce”.
A Wife approached the court seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty. The wife, represented by Advocate Ashutosh, contended that her husband was a habitual drinker and involved in illicit activities such as gambling. She further contended that her husband’s family exerted pressure to provide dowry in the form of gifts and cash
The husband, represented by Advocate Sumit Kumar Khatri, denied all the aforementioned allegations of cruelty. The family court, however, concluded that the wife failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty made in the petition and consequently dismissed the petition through the impugned judgment.
The court agreed with the Family Court’s observations that merely alleging cruelty without evidence was insufficient, as what might constitute cruelty for one person may not be for another. The Wife’s testimony was also deemed unreliable due to a lack of consistent and comprehensive evidence.
The court referred to the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, wherein the Supreme Court examined the concept of ‘mental cruelty’ and reiterated that long periods of separation could lead to a breakdown of the marriage. The court emphasized that, in such cases, divorce should not be withheld as it would only prolong the misery for both parties.
The court referred to the family court’s observations and noted that the family court failed to apply these principles despite acknowledging the long period of separation between the parties. The wife had not sought maintenance or alimony and merely sought a divorce. Furthermore, there were no children from the marriage, so no third party would be adversely affected by the divorce.
The Court noted that the husband admitted to sending an email on March 15, 2022, suggesting a mutual consent divorce but later changed his mind without providing a clear explanation. The court rejected the husband’s contention that divorce would bring dishonor or stigma. The court observed that in contemporary times, the stigma associated with divorce is not as prevalent, especially among educated individuals.
Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the family court.
Case Title: Ruchi Wadhawan v Amit Wali (2024:DHC:6007-DB)
Please Login or Register
