Wife’s pub-hopping no ground for divorce: Mum HC
11 Jan 2015 11:17 PM GMT
A Division Bench of Justices Vijaya Tahilramani and Anil Menon recently upheld an order of Family Court, which had declined to grant divorce to the man, holding that such behaviour on part of his wife did not amount to cruelty. “In our view, the Family Court has appreciated the evidence and come to justifiable findings that the appellant (husband) has failed to prove that the respondent (wife) has treated him with cruelty,” the Bench said, while hearing an appeal filed by the man.
The instances of cruelty cited by the husband were rude behaviour by his wife, excessive socialising, going to pubs and discos, neglecting their child, hitting him with a vase, hurling hot cup of tea, making false accusations and throwing tantrums during their honeymoon.
“As far as visits to discos and pubs is concerned, it has come in the cross-examination that they both visited pubs and discos even during the period of courtship. We are of the view that evidence does not reveal the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty. At the best it establishes inappropriate and intemperate behaviour that is not expected in matrimonial relationship,” the Bench noted.
Irretrievable break down of marriage, cited as one of the reasons for dissolution of the matrimonial alliance, does not amount to cruelty, the Judges noted. “At best, evidence shows insuperable incompatibility between the parties falling short of cruelty. Be that as it may, irretrievable break down of marriage owing to severe and/or insuperable incompatibility does not amount to cruelty and as such no relief can be granted in appeal against the impugned order in as far as divorce is concerned,” the bench said.
The instances of cruelty cited by the husband were rude behaviour by his wife, excessive socialising, going to pubs and discos, neglecting their child, hitting him with a vase, hurling hot cup of tea, making false accusations and throwing tantrums during their honeymoon.
“As far as visits to discos and pubs is concerned, it has come in the cross-examination that they both visited pubs and discos even during the period of courtship. We are of the view that evidence does not reveal the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty. At the best it establishes inappropriate and intemperate behaviour that is not expected in matrimonial relationship,” the Bench noted.
Irretrievable break down of marriage, cited as one of the reasons for dissolution of the matrimonial alliance, does not amount to cruelty, the Judges noted. “At best, evidence shows insuperable incompatibility between the parties falling short of cruelty. Be that as it may, irretrievable break down of marriage owing to severe and/or insuperable incompatibility does not amount to cruelty and as such no relief can be granted in appeal against the impugned order in as far as divorce is concerned,” the bench said.
Next Story
