A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court established that consistent disparaging comments by a wife regarding her husband’s financial status, accompanied by coercive actions pushing him to fulfill impractical desires beyond his means, amount to mental cruelty. This forms a valid ground for pursuing a divorce, as emphasized by the Division Bench led by Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna. The court highlighted the principle that a spouse should not persistently remind the other of financial constraints.
A wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations. Pressurizing spouse to fulfil distant and whimsical dreams clearly not within his financial reach may create a sense of persistent dissatisfaction which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life. One must tread carefully between the needs, wants and desires,” the Court observed.
It stated that ongoing disputes and conflicts can generate mental stress and have a detrimental impact on an individual’s mental well-being.
“The various incidents narrated by the respondent (husband) towards the overall conduct and a non-adjusting attitude of the appellant (wife) who lacked maturity to even sort out the differences with the husband, leads to the irresistible conclusion that such conduct was bound to cause a grave apprehension in the mind of the respondent disrupting his mental equilibrium. Though these incidents may seem to be innocuous, insignificant or trifling when considered independently, but when such conduct prevails over a period of time, it is bound to create mental stress of the kind, which makes it impossible for the parties to survive in their matrimonial relationship.”
It contended that persistent arguments and conflicts possess the capacity to induce mental stress and adversely impact the mental health of an individual.
“This is also evident from the language of under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the HMA which is to the effect that “either party”, which includes the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor, who can seek divorce in case of noncompliance of decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. If the Parliament intended that it is only the party in whose favour the restitution has been allowed, who can avail the remedy under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the HMA, then the language would have been accordingly used in the said Section,” the Court said.
It added,
“The very fact that Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, enures to the benefit of “either party” clearly implies that in case of non-compliance of a Decree under Section 9 of the HMA, either party is entitled to seek divorce on this ground and the Judgment Debtor cannot be precluded from exercising his right to avail the relief thereof. Section 23 cannot be interpreted in a way to completely render the remedy under Section 13 (1A) (ii) otiose.”
The court articulated the aforementioned observations within the purview of a petition presented by a woman challenging the decision of a family court to accede to her husband’s petition for divorce. The family court predicated its decision on the grounds of cruelty, citing the failure to restore conjugal rights for a duration of one year, despite a prior decree to that effect.
The husband contended that the wife compelled him to relocate from Haryana to Delhi, insisted on establishing a separate residence, and censured him for borrowing ₹8,000 from her parents. He further alleged that she accused him of engaging with another woman, harbored aspirations of an affluent lifestyle, and resisted adapting to the limited resources he could provide.
In response, the wife vehemently denied all accusations, asserting their baselessness and fabrication. She affirmed her fidelity to her husband and declared her commitment to fulfilling all matrimonial obligations dutifully.
Upon meticulous examination, the court concurred with the family court’s finding of mental cruelty inflicted upon the husband. Additionally, it underscored the failure to restore conjugal rights despite a previous decree to that effect. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.
Advocate Ashok Sharma represented the wife, while the husband was legally represented by advocates Mrinal Bharti, Manish Kumar Shekhari, and Sanjana Srivastava.
