Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Karnataka High Court while granting divorce to a woman observed that her husband’s behavior of treating her like a “cash cow” and having an emotionless “materialistic attitude” towards her was sufficient to make out a ground of mental cruelty.

Court said, “The respondent has no emotional ties with the appellant. The attitude of the respondent in itself has caused mental agony and emotional trauma to appellant which is sufficient to make out a ground of mental cruelty.”

As per media reports, the Couple shifted to UAE in 2008 as the family of the husband was under financial distress. Women took up job in a bank and paid debt of her husband’s family, at the same time invested in a small salon business for her husband which he later abandoned and came back to India in 2013.

Women filed a divorce plea in 2017 in the family court which got rejected on the grounds that there was no cruelty as contended by her. After which she approached the High court.

“He failed to be financially independent and instead of taking care financial needs of the husband he was dependent on her,” the women's counsel submitted before the court.

Various documents and bank account details were also submitted for proving that the woman transferred Rs 60 lakh in all in favor of her husband.

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and JM Khazi allowing the plea of the women observed,

“The family court has grossly erred in not appreciating the version of the appellant and it ought to have been appreciated that the testimony of the appellant was not even put to cross examination. Therefore, there is no convincing reason not to accept the incontrovertible testimony of the appellant.”

Consequently, court ordered and issued a decree of divorce under section 10 (1)(x) of the Divorce Act while setting aside the decree and judgment of the family court.

[Law in question: Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act states that on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, a marriage be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.]

[Inputs: Indian Express]