Read Time: 05 minutes
In the present case, the husband filed for divorce citing the wife's indifferent conduct since the beginning of their marriage in 2009. He claimed incidents such as the wife refusing to fast on Karwa Chauth in 2009 due to a dispute over a phone recharge
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the decision not to observe the Karwa Chauth fast is an individual choice and does not constitute cruelty or justification for ending marital ties.
A division bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna highlighted that diverse religious beliefs and the omission of specific religious practices do not automatically amount to cruelty.
"Fasting or not fasting on Karwa Chauth may be an individual choice and, if dispassionately considered, may not be termed an act of cruelty. Having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties, perse would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient to sever a marital tie,” it observed.
The court's decision came as part of a divorce case where the family court had granted the husband a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. Despite the acceptance of the non-observance of Karwa Chauth as an individual choice, the court upheld the divorce, emphasizing the wife's overall lack of respect for the marital bond.
In this case, the husband filed for divorce, alleging the wife's indifferent conduct since the beginning of their marriage in 2009. He cited incidents such as the wife refusing to fast on Karwa Chauth in 2009 due to a dispute over a phone recharge. Additionally, when the husband suffered a slip disc in April, the wife removed vermillion, broke bangles, and wore white, claiming widowhood.
While recognizing the individual choice not to fast on Karwa Chauth, the Court, considering all circumstances, concluded that the wife's conduct and failure to adhere to prevalent Hindu rituals symbolizing love and respect for the husband demonstrated a lack of regard for the marital bond.
The court stated that the wife's act of behaving like a widow during her husband's injury amounted to extreme cruelty.
The court further noted the wife's filing of criminal complaints against the husband and his elderly parents, finding no justification for these complaints.
It highlighted the wife's early departure from the matrimonial home and lack of reconciliatory efforts, ultimately affirming the family court's decision to grant divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
"We, therefore, find that the appellant/wife has acted with cruelty towards the respondent/husband, and divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955, has been rightly granted," it held.
Court concluded that the prolonged separation, coupled with false allegations and criminal trials, constituted mental cruelty, leading to the irreparable breakdown of the marital relationship.
Case Title: Beena Nautiyal v. Kamal Kishore Nautiyal
Please Login or Register
