Quashing a family court verdict, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court allowed an Amravati woman to end her marriage by ruling that “suspecting wife’s character is cruelty to her”. The wife, an engineer, had approached the family court for divorce after 13 years of tumultuous marriage citing her husband’s supposed inferiority complex and continual ill-treatment, including bouts of physical abuse.
“It is clear husband’s conduct in suspecting wife’s character, physically assaulting and harassing her, as she was coming home late from work due to nature of her job, are the facts duly established amounting to cruelty. Therefore, the wife is entitled to a decree of divorce on same ground,” a bench of Justice Vasanti Naik and Justice Indira Jain held.
After entering into matrimony on March 11, 2000, the couple started residing in Wardha in a joint family. Soon cracks appeared in marriage as petitioner’s in-laws were allegedly uncomfortable with her educational qualifications.
Though she opted for becoming a homemaker and do all household chores, the complaints continued. Fed up with harassment, she decided to look for a job.
Meanwhile, she suffered two miscarriages that added to her trauma. Finally, she delivered a baby boy. After a couple of years, she secured a job in Pune, however, the husband refused to shift with her even though he was unemployed at that time.
After she shifted to Pune, against his wishes, the differences began to grow. Later, the husband too shifted to Pune, but fights continued over her coming home late at night. The couple then decided to call off their marriage and file a divorce petition before Amravati family Court by mutual consent. However, as wife refused husband access to the child, the husband refused to sign divorce papers.
The family court refused to grant them divorce in absence of concrete evidence. She challenged it in the high court where Justice Naik and Justice Joshi noted that many allegations levelled at the husband were not challenged by him. They further pointed out that husband’s decision to file divorce plea by mutual consent earlier indicated he had accepted marriage could not be saved and no purpose will be served in continuing it.
“It’s not the case of husband that his signature on divorce plea was obtained by force, fraud or coercion. He voluntarily agreed to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent,” the judges said.
The judges flayed family court judge for overlooking these aspects. “We find findings recorded by the family court are not in consonance with the evidence adduced by the parties. The judge also lost sight of most important facts elicited in husband’s cross examination. In this premise, findings recorded by the family court are found to be perverse and need interference in this appeal,” the court ruled before allowing wife’s plea.
“It is clear husband’s conduct in suspecting wife’s character, physically assaulting and harassing her, as she was coming home late from work due to nature of her job, are the facts duly established amounting to cruelty. Therefore, the wife is entitled to a decree of divorce on same ground,” a bench of Justice Vasanti Naik and Justice Indira Jain held.
After entering into matrimony on March 11, 2000, the couple started residing in Wardha in a joint family. Soon cracks appeared in marriage as petitioner’s in-laws were allegedly uncomfortable with her educational qualifications.
Though she opted for becoming a homemaker and do all household chores, the complaints continued. Fed up with harassment, she decided to look for a job.
Meanwhile, she suffered two miscarriages that added to her trauma. Finally, she delivered a baby boy. After a couple of years, she secured a job in Pune, however, the husband refused to shift with her even though he was unemployed at that time.
After she shifted to Pune, against his wishes, the differences began to grow. Later, the husband too shifted to Pune, but fights continued over her coming home late at night. The couple then decided to call off their marriage and file a divorce petition before Amravati family Court by mutual consent. However, as wife refused husband access to the child, the husband refused to sign divorce papers.
The family court refused to grant them divorce in absence of concrete evidence. She challenged it in the high court where Justice Naik and Justice Joshi noted that many allegations levelled at the husband were not challenged by him. They further pointed out that husband’s decision to file divorce plea by mutual consent earlier indicated he had accepted marriage could not be saved and no purpose will be served in continuing it.
“It’s not the case of husband that his signature on divorce plea was obtained by force, fraud or coercion. He voluntarily agreed to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent,” the judges said.
The judges flayed family court judge for overlooking these aspects. “We find findings recorded by the family court are not in consonance with the evidence adduced by the parties. The judge also lost sight of most important facts elicited in husband’s cross examination. In this premise, findings recorded by the family court are found to be perverse and need interference in this appeal,” the court ruled before allowing wife’s plea.
Comments
Post a Comment