Reluctance to take wife back home can’t be factor to decide divorce: HC
Summary: We feel that this cannot be a factor to decide the fate of the divorce petition,” the bench said.
“We find the family court is justified in holding that the ground of separate residence claimed as the basis for cruelty was an after thought,” the bench ruled.
Mere temperamental differences between the couple cannot entitle the husband for a decree of divorce.
The differences of opinion between the wife and parents of the husband can occur because she is a new person in the family.
“He (appellant) came to the court with a specific case of mental cruelty being inflicted by the respondent on him.
Pune: The Bombay high court has held that a husband’s reluctance to take his wife and minor son back home, under the pretext that passage of time had rendered the marriage loveless, cannot be a factor in deciding the fate of a divorce petition.On October 12, the bench comprising Justices A A Sayed and Manish Pitale dismissed an appeal by a Hadapsar resident, challenging a Pune family court’s judgment of January 17, 2009, that rejected his plea for divorce on the grounds of cruelty on his wife’s part.”An attempt was made on behalf of the appellant (husband) to demonstrate that there was nothing left in the marriage with passage of time and that the appellant was in no state of mind to take back the respondent (wife) and the minor child to his home. We feel that this cannot be a factor to decide the fate of the divorce petition,” the bench said.”He (appellant) came to the court with a specific case of mental cruelty being inflicted by the respondent on him. But, he had failed to prove his case on the basis of evidence and material on record,” the bench added.In his divorce petition before the family court here, the husband had accused the wife of subjecting him and his parents to mental cruelty in pursuit of her demand to live in a separate residence , As Reported By TOI.
According to the Newspaper,He also alleged that the wife was stubborn and quarrelsome by nature.The family court had rejected the divorce plea, observing that the separate resident reason cited as cruelty, was an afterthought as it was not mentioned in the legal notice served to the wife before the divorce petition was filed. It further held that there was insufficient evidence on record to prove cruelty and there was enough material, as demonstrated by the evidence of an independent witness, to show that it was the husband who was responsible for the quarrels. It held that he cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoings.During the pendency of appeal, the HC tried to bring about a conciliation between the couple through a counsellor between September 2009 and April 2010, but after the counsellor filed a failure report, the HC admitted the appeal in August 2010 for hearing on merit.The HC, while appreciating the entire evidence and material on record, observed that the legal notice sent on March 8, 2007 to the wife before initiation of the divorce proceedings, demonstrated certain temperamental differences between the husband and wife.”This (differences) could qualify as irritation and general wear and tear in married life.