The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court’s decision to dissolve the marriage of a couple in their 70s, who have been living apart for several years. The court dismissed the wife’s appeal against the divorce decree granted to the husband on grounds of cruelty.
The high court observed that instead of resolving their disputes, the woman continued with divorce proceedings by making unsubstantiated allegations. The husband claimed they had been living separately since 1980, while the woman stated they had been apart since January 2013.
The court noted the advanced age of the parties and criticized the wife for perpetuating litigation against the husband and his sister. It stated that the wife showed no inclination towards reconciliation despite the prolonged separation.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, in a recent order, expressed that the appellant wife’s actions indicated her lack of willingness to reconcile with the husband. The court dismissed the woman’s appeal against the family court’s decree granting divorce to the husband.
The couple, both Overseas Citizens of India (OCI), had married in 1973 and have two children. After 41 years of marriage, the husband sought divorce citing cruelty, which was granted by the family court in 2018.
The husband alleged mental and physical cruelty by his wife and claimed his right to live in her company had been deprived. He filed for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
On the other hand, the wife argued before the family court that the divorce petition was retaliation to her domestic violence plea against the husband. She accused him of having an extramarital affair and deserting her, claiming he provided no financial support.
The woman challenged the family court’s divorce decree, asserting it was based on false grounds. In its judgment, the high court stressed the importance of trust and faith in marriage and highlighted that false accusations of infidelity constitute severe cruelty, undermining the marital bond.
The bench further noted that despite receiving a substantial sum from the husband, the wife still pursued financial support through legal channels, indicating her intention to harass him mentally.
