Doubt is very serious in conjugal life

Asking for a divorce claiming that the woman has levelled wild and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband and his parents has just gotten more difficult. In a unique judgment recently delivered by the Bandra family court, it was held that though the ground of mental cruelty against the man was proved, divorce still can't be granted considering the husband's conduct and, since the woman is willing to continue with marital life, it cannot be said that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. 

The couple, who got married in 2010, has a minor child out of the said wedlock. The husband had moved the family court seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and sought free access to the child, while the woman sought to continue her married life. 

The grounds raised by the husband seeking divorce were that the woman had petty quarrels with him and his family members. She would continuously talk on her mobile phone and would step out for walks in the nearby garden late at night. She would not cook and there were instances when she had left the gas knob on, thereby endangering the lives of everyone around.

It was also said that while conceiving, the woman had kept telling the husband that the child was not his, thus causing him tremendous mental agony. The woman denied all these allegations and levelled counter allegations of ill treatment and dowry demand against her husband and in-laws. However, she could not substantiate the same. The family court, after carefully going through the records, held that levelling baseless allegations against the husband did amount to mental cruelty. However, as per section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is the duty of the court to satisfy itself as to whether the husband is not taking advantage of his own wrongdoings. The term wrongdoings includes bad behaviour and improper conduct. 

The court said: "The husband has levelled very serious and wild allegations against the woman about her chastity. Thought there is no specific pleading/wording or allegation in the petition, it can still be gathered from the overall contentions of the petitioner." 

It added: "Because of the petitioner's doubt, the woman was required to face a DNA test. The petitioner's contention that the woman denied the paternity of the child, because of which it was necessary to conduct the test, does not appear to be probable and reliable. No ordinary prudent man would rely upon such contentions. Because of the premature birth of the child and also due to the woman's alleged phone calls, there was a doubt in the husband's mind. Such a doubt is very serious and can amount to lowering the dignity of the woman." 

The court also said: "Granting decree in favour of such a person would definitely amount to rewarding the wrongdoer. When he has thrown mud at the woman, then he should not complain about mud being thrown at him. In my view, the husband is also a wrongdoer and he cannot be granted the advantage of the woman's unsubstantiated claims.