“A wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations.”: Delhi High Court (A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna)
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has underscored the importance of understanding and empathy within marital relationships, particularly concerning financial constraints. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, highlighted that it is detrimental for a spouse to constantly remind the other of their financial limitations, stating,
“A wife should not be a constant reminder of one’s financial limitations.”
The court elaborated on the psychological impact of pressuring a spouse to fulfill unrealistic dreams, noting that such pressure can lead to persistent dissatisfaction, mental strain, and ultimately sap the contentment and tranquility essential for a harmonious married life.
“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.”
-The court added
The court’s observations came during the hearing of a plea by a woman challenging a family court’s decision to grant her husband a divorce on grounds of cruelty. The family court’s decision was also influenced by the absence of restitution of conjugal rights for over a year, despite a decree being passed to this effect. The justices pointed out that constant bickering and an unwillingness to adjust can significantly contribute to mental stress, disrupting one’s mental equilibrium and making it challenging for the couple to continue their matrimonial relationship.
In their detailed judgment dated January 30, the bench further clarified the legal framework under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing that the provision for divorce following a decree of restitution of conjugal rights is an absolute right that benefits both parties involved, regardless of who holds the decree.
“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
The court further explained-
“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.”
The case in question revolved around the husband’s grievances against his wife, including her insistence on relocating from Haryana to Delhi, setting up a separate household, and her constant taunts over a loan of ₹8,000 taken from her parents. He also accused her of harboring unrealistic aspirations for a high-society lifestyle and failing to adapt to the financial limitations he faced. The wife, on her part, denied these allegations, asserting her faithfulness and commitment to her matrimonial duties.
This ruling sheds light on the nuanced understanding of cruelty within the context of marriage, emphasizing that emotional and psychological well-being are as crucial as physical welfare. The Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the legal system’s recognition of the complexities of marital relationships and the importance of mutual respect and understanding between spouses.
Read Judgment:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
