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 argued that ongoing disputes and conflicts have the potential to cause mental strain and negatively affect an individual’s mental well-being.
“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 expressed the above-mentioned observations in relation to a petition filed by a woman challenging the family court’s decision to grant her husband’s divorce petition. The family court based its ruling on allegations of cruelty, citing the failure to reinstate conjugal rights for a period of one year, despite a prior decree to that effect.
The husband argued that the wife compelled him to move from Haryana to Delhi, insisted on having a separate residence, and criticized him for borrowing ₹8,000 from her parents. He also claimed that she accused him of having an affair, desired a luxurious lifestyle, and resisted adapting to the limited resources he could provide.
In response, the wife vehemently denied all accusations, asserting their unfounded and fabricated nature. She affirmed her loyalty to her husband and declared her commitment to fulfilling all matrimonial obligations dutifully.
After careful examination, the court agreed with the family court’s determination of mental cruelty inflicted upon the husband. Additionally, it emphasized the failure to reinstate conjugal rights despite a previous decree to that effect. As a result, 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.
