[ad_1]
The court observed the disputes emanating from disrespect to the husband and his family members and that the conduct of the wife “indisputably” amounted to cruelty. NEW DELHI: Living with another woman during the pendency of divorce proceedings after a long separation cannot disentitle a husband from divorce on account of proven cruelty by his wife, the Delhi High Court has said.
While upholding the divorce granted by a family court to one such couple, a bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed that they had been living separately since 2005 with no possibility of re-union, and the prolonged differences and criminal complaints by the wife made the husband’s life bereft of peace and conjugal relationship.
The court observed the disputes emanating from disrespect to the husband and his family members and frequent quarrels resulted in mental agony for which there was no solution and the conduct of the wife “indisputably” amounted to cruelty.
“Such prolonged differences and criminal complaints made the life of respondent-husband bereft of peace and conjugal relationship which is the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship,” the bench, also comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, said in an order dated September 13.
“After such long years of separation with no possibility of re-union, the respondent-husband may have found his peace and comfort by living with another woman, but, that is a subsequent event during the pendency of the Divorce Petition and cannot disentitle the husband from divorce from the wife on the proven grounds of cruelty,” the court stated.
The court observed the wife was not been able to prove any other act of cruelty by the husband to disentitle him from obtaining a divorce.
It said the family court rightly concluded that the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty and dismissed her appeal.
In the instant case, the wife challenged the family court order granting divorce to the husband claiming the allegations of cruelty against her were incorrect.
She said her husband had got married to another woman.
The court, however, said there were no details or proof of the alleged second marriage of the husband.
[ad_2]
Source link