Read Time: 06 minutes
Court noted that marriage was not consummated by the wife who had filed a police complaint claiming she was harassed for dowry but without giving any “cogent evidence”
The Delhi High Court while upholding the divorce granted to a couple whose marriage effectively subsisted for barely 35 days and failed on account of non-consummation of marriage, referred to its observation in an earlier case that "marriage without sex is an anathema".
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected the wife’s appeal against the family court order granting divorce.
The bench said that wilful denial of sexual relationship by a spouse amounts to cruelty.
“Wilful denial of sexual relationship by a spouse amounts to cruelty, especially when the parties are newly married and this itself is a ground for grant of divorce”, it added.
Court noted that the marriage was not consummated by the wife who had filed a police complaint claiming that she was harassed for dowry but without giving any “cogent evidence”. This can also be termed as cruelty, the court said.
It also noted that the couple got married according to Hindu customs and rites in 2004 and the wife soon went back to her parents’ home and did not return. Thereafter, the husband approached the family court for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The bench said that the family court "rightly concluded" that although the ground of desertion was not proved, the conduct of the wife towards the husband amounted to cruelty, entitling him to the decree of divorce.
"Making allegations of dowry harassment resulted in registration of a FIR and the trial to follow can only be termed as an act of cruelty when the appellant has failed to prove even one incident of dowry demand," it said.
"In (a case), the Supreme Court laid down various acts which may amount to mental cruelty and one such illustration was unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period of time without there being no physical incapacity or valid reason," it added.
Court also said that the evidence on record established that the wife did not permit the husband to consummate the marriage.
“In the present case, not only did the marriage between the parties subsist for barely 35 days but failed completely on account of deprivation of conjugal rights and consummation of marriage. It may also not be overlooked that such deprivation over a period of more than 18 years itself amounts to mental cruelty”, the court observed.
“The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts has rightly concluded that though the desertion has not been proved but the conduct of the appellant-wife towards the respondent-husband amounted to cruelty, entitling him to the decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955. 27. In view of the discussion above, we find no infirmity in the impugned Judgment of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts. 28. The Appeal and the applications, if any, stand disposed of”, court ordered.
Case Title: Seema v. Vijay Kumar
Please Login or Register
