The Delhi High Court has granted divorce to a couple on the ground of mental cruelty by the husband, observing that he viewed his wife as a “cash cow” and became interested in her only after she got a job with the Delhi Police. A bench headed by Justice Vipin Sanghi and comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh, said the husband’s materialistic attitude, without any emotional ties, would have caused mental agony and trauma to the wife, which is sufficient to constitute cruelty to her. The court set aside a family court’s order which rejected the wife’s divorce plea and dissolved the marriage between the parties under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The bench, also comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh, observed that generally, it is the desire of every married woman to start a family, however, in the present case, the husband appeared to be “not interested in nurturing the marriage but only interested in the wife’s income”.
She sought a divorce on the ground that the husband was unemployed, an alcoholic and used to physically abuse her and demand money. In the present case, both the parties belonged to poor background and the marriage was solemnised when the husband and the wife were 19 years old and 13 years old, respectively. Even after attaining the age of majority in 2005, the wife was not taken to the matrimonial home until November 2014, that is, when she secured a job with the Delhi Police.
“The continued distance between the parties even after the appellant (wife) attained majority would, in itself, have caused trauma and resulted in cruelty to the appellant apart from everything else… (the) circumstance probabalises the stand of the appellant, that the respondent (husband) harassed the appellant to pocket her income, since he was himself unemployed,” the court said.
“The respondent, it appears, viewed the appellant as a cash cow and became interested in her only after she got the job with the Delhi Police. Such brazenly materialistic attitude of the respondent, with no emotional ties, would have in itself caused mental agony and trauma to the appellant sufficient to constitute cruelty to her,” it added.
The husband opposed the dissolution of marriage on the ground that he funded the woman’s education because of which she secured the job. The court observed that since the wife was living with her parents till 2014, it was “obvious that all her expenses for living and upbringing would have been borne by her parents” and there was nothing to show the contrary. Both parties, in this case, were from a low-income family and the marriage was solemnised when the husband and wife were 19 and 13 years old, respectively.Even after attaining the age of majority in 2005, the wife was not brought to the matrimonial home until November 2014, when she secured a job with the Delhi Police.
However, the husband opposed the dissolution of marriage on the grounds that he funded the woman’s education, because of which she secured the job. The court observed that since the wife was living with her parents till 2014, it was “obvious that all her expenses for living and upbringing would have been borne by her parents” and there was nothing to show the contrary.
“From our interaction with the respondent, it has become absolutely clear to us that the interest of the respondent in continuing with the relationship is only on account of the fact that the appellant has a job with Delhi Police, and he views the alleged expenditure which he claimed he has incurred on the education of the appellant (and which is disputed by the appellant), as an investment, which would not bear fruit in case parties were to part ways with judicial intervention,” the court said
In matrimonial matters, the quality and quantity of evidence required to accept the plea by one or the other party, cannot be same as that required in criminal proceedings. Standard of proof in matrimonial proceedings is founded upon the preponderance of probabilities, and not upon a fact being established beyond all reasonable doubts. Looking to the overall circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellant was able to establish the ground of cruelty and desertion (Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511, the Supreme Court).
