The supreme court recently affirmed a man's divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, pointing out that his wife, who had only lived with him for two months, had falsely accused him of character assassination, dowry demands, fraud, and harassment.
Nonetheless, the woman's appeal against the 2018 ruling of the bombayhigh court was partially granted by a panel of Justices vikram Nath and prasanna B. Varale, who also ordered the husband to make a one-time payment of Rs 10 lakh.
"Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, the financial status of the parties, their standards of living, the fact that the respondent (man) has already remarried and also bears the financial responsibility of his new family, we find that awarding an amount of Rs 10,00,000 as a one-time settlement in favor of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice," the court wrote.
Before getting married in 2012, the couple dated for four years. But in 2014, citing abuse and abandonment, the man filed for divorce in Nagpur's family court under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955.
He said that shortly after they were married, his father had a heart condition that kept him in the hospital for 15 days, which prevented him from spending time with his wife. She allegedly became displeased with this, left for her mother's house, and refused to return since she didn't want to live in a joint household. According to the man, they had just lived together for two months or so and were childless.
Separately, the lady filed a motion in the family court to declare their marriage void, claiming that the husband and his family had defrauded her parents out of their money. She did not contest the order or move back in with her husband when her petition was denied in 2014.
His wife refuted the man's accusation that she had threatened his family by filing fictitious criminal charges. The guy claimed that the woman's suggestion that her spouse had an extramarital affair with his friend's wife constituted mental torture during cross-examination.
The wife contested the man's ex parte divorce judgment in 2015 before the supreme court, which resulted in a new investigation into the case. In 2017, the marriage was dissolved by the family court, which determined that although the husband was unable to show desertion, he had sufficiently demonstrated mental cruelty since his wife had made false accusations of character assassination, dowry harassment, and fraud.
In 2018, after an appeal, the top court determined that the lady had falsely accused the husband and his family of fraud without any evidence. It further stated that it was harsh of her to urge that the husband leave his family and live with her alone. Furthermore, it determined that her accusations about his character made during cross-examination constituted mental cruelty.
The spouse claimed to have remarried in 2018 and offered mediation for a one-time payment before the supreme court, but no deal was achieved. The lady said during arguments that the man had three wives, two homes, and a monthly income of over Rs 1.30 lakh. However, the spouse claimed that he was paid just for the days that he was engaged, working as a day-rate electrician under contract. He further said that the woman ran a unisex salon and made over Rs 2 lakh a month.
After reviewing the case, the bench stated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and declined to intervene in the divorce decision. "It is evident that the subsisting dispute between the parties remains only concerning the maintenance amount and both the parties have agreed to the grant of divorce, therefore, we do not find it fitting to unnecessarily delve into the veracity of allegations of cruelty leveled by the respondent against the appellant," the court stated.
The bench used Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), a precedent that has been upheld in several decisions, including the most recent one in kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod patel (2024), while addressing the issue of perpetual alimony.
Upon examining the affidavits, the court concluded that the husband had attempted to avoid his obligation to provide for his ex-wife by not being honest about his financial situation. "This court shall not acquiesce to such conduct of the respondent-husband," said the bench.
It pointed out that although the husband's various revenue streams, including rental income, were clear, the assertion that the lady made Rs 2 lakh a month from a nagpur salon seemed inflated.
The lady was granted Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony by the bench, which balanced the interests of both parties and said that this sum would guarantee her financial stability without placing an undue strain on her husband.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel