Dismissing wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights, Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ruled that allegations of impotency against husband amounts to cruelty and he is entitled for divorce. "No husband would like to hear that he was impotent for about six to seven months after the marriage. If that was not true, allegations would surely hurt a man's ego. Before levelling them against the husband, the wife should have given some thought," a division bench comprising Justice Vasanti Naik and Justice Swapna Joshi stated.
The couple entered into matrimony on September 27, 2007, but problems started as they used to reside in a joint family. After honeymoon period, the wife started disrespecting her in-laws and abusing them. She also pressurized the husband to live separately and refused to do household daily chores. She used to threaten husband to implicate him and in-laws under false charges and made a startling allegation that he was impotent during initial period of marriage and used to consume medicines like Nag Bhasma. As the couple found it difficult to have a child for a long time, the doctor suggested medical treatment to the wife, which she declined.
Fed up with her erratic behaviour and constant harassment, the husband filed divorce case in family court. While allowing his plea, the court dissolved their marriage on January 22, 2013, but directed him to pay Rs2 lakh to wife along with Rs2,500 alimony per month.
The Hinganghat-based wife challenged it in the high court contending that husband's allegations were regarding normal wear and tear of married life, which were insufficient to grant divorce. She asserted that she desired to live with him and continue their marriage, despite ill treatment meted out to her.
Then Justice Naik and Justice Joshi observed that threats of committing suicide and implicating the in-laws under false cases coupled with allegations of husband being impotent and a wife-beater, tantamount to cruelty, if not proved. "The family court rightly observed that though husband failed to prove that wife declined to do routine household work and cook for his family, he was successful in proving that she had threatened him on several occasions of committing suicide by pouring kerosene and falsely implicating in-laws," they said.
They however flayed the family court for justifying wife's father's suggestion to the husband to mutate his name on entire property, including agriculture land, in his name, particularly on the day, when his father expired. "We find that conduct on part of wife's father is absolutely improper as on the date of husband's father's death, the father-in-law can't suggest to him that he should record his name on entire properties left behind by his father. That is not the time or occasion to give this suggestion," the judges tersely observed.
They added that family court's observation that such a suggestion wouldn't be unwarranted or improper does not appear to be correct. "If such suggestions are given on same day of husband's father died, we don't find that the same would be correct. No father-in-law should ask his son-in-law to mutate latter's name on all properties left behind by his father on the very day he dies. Such an unwarranted suggestion by the wife's father may also have triggered further animosity between the parties," the judges clarified.
The couple entered into matrimony on September 27, 2007, but problems started as they used to reside in a joint family. After honeymoon period, the wife started disrespecting her in-laws and abusing them. She also pressurized the husband to live separately and refused to do household daily chores. She used to threaten husband to implicate him and in-laws under false charges and made a startling allegation that he was impotent during initial period of marriage and used to consume medicines like Nag Bhasma. As the couple found it difficult to have a child for a long time, the doctor suggested medical treatment to the wife, which she declined.
Fed up with her erratic behaviour and constant harassment, the husband filed divorce case in family court. While allowing his plea, the court dissolved their marriage on January 22, 2013, but directed him to pay Rs2 lakh to wife along with Rs2,500 alimony per month.
The Hinganghat-based wife challenged it in the high court contending that husband's allegations were regarding normal wear and tear of married life, which were insufficient to grant divorce. She asserted that she desired to live with him and continue their marriage, despite ill treatment meted out to her.
Then Justice Naik and Justice Joshi observed that threats of committing suicide and implicating the in-laws under false cases coupled with allegations of husband being impotent and a wife-beater, tantamount to cruelty, if not proved. "The family court rightly observed that though husband failed to prove that wife declined to do routine household work and cook for his family, he was successful in proving that she had threatened him on several occasions of committing suicide by pouring kerosene and falsely implicating in-laws," they said.
They however flayed the family court for justifying wife's father's suggestion to the husband to mutate his name on entire property, including agriculture land, in his name, particularly on the day, when his father expired. "We find that conduct on part of wife's father is absolutely improper as on the date of husband's father's death, the father-in-law can't suggest to him that he should record his name on entire properties left behind by his father. That is not the time or occasion to give this suggestion," the judges tersely observed.
They added that family court's observation that such a suggestion wouldn't be unwarranted or improper does not appear to be correct. "If such suggestions are given on same day of husband's father died, we don't find that the same would be correct. No father-in-law should ask his son-in-law to mutate latter's name on all properties left behind by his father on the very day he dies. Such an unwarranted suggestion by the wife's father may also have triggered further animosity between the parties," the judges clarified.
Comments
Post a Comment