Wife Creates Matrimonial Profile: Bombay HC Grants Divorce To Husband On The Grounds Of Mental Cruelty.
Last Updated on August 31, 2021 by Administrator
By- Shrey Garg
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has granted a divorce to the 36-year-old husband on the grounds of ‘mental cruelty’ inflicted against him by the wife.
In the present case the appellant husband claimed that after marriage with the respondent wife in 2014 he started living with her in Panjim as he was employed in Goa. However, the wife repeatedly asked him to move to Aloka and eventually stopped living with him after a year.
After leaving his house, the wife registered various complaints against the husband in police station and women’s commission along with petitions filed under Section 125 of the CrPC before the family court and Section 498 of the CrPC against his family members.
In its 2020 verdict the family court decided to reject the divorce petition by the husband.
The court nevertheless had clarified that husband was subjected to cruelty but there was not ample evidence which proved that this act of the wife will make it injurious for the husband to live with her.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Family Court the appellant husband has filed this petition in front of the High Court.
Justice GA Sanap in the present case has observed that as per examination of evidence on record it could be concluded that the husband was subjected to mental pain and sufferings by the wife which had made it impossible for him to continue cohabitation with her.
He further added that it has been proved that mental injury was of such a nature that it would hamper the health of the appellant husband.
The court also repudiated the family court for ignoring the marriage profiles created by the wife on two different matrimonial websites when it rejected the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband.
The court while passing the order also observed that the women’s conduct was contradictory to her written system and also upheld the magistrate’s decision to dismiss her complaints filed under the DV Act by terming them as ‘wild and ‘unfounded’.
