A couple was granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty by the Delhi High Court in the observation that the husband took his wife to be a “cash cow” and grew his interest in her only after she acquired a job with the Delhi police.
A bench headed by Justice Vipin Sanghi noted that the husband’s materialistic attitude without having any emotional bonds would have caused mental agony and trauma to his wife which equates to cruelty.
In a general observation, the bench comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh stated that every married woman desires to start a family, but in the present case the husband seemed to be "not interested in nurturing the marriage but only interested in the wife's income".
Dismissing the family court’s order that had denied the wife’s divorce plea and dissolved the marriage between the parties under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Seeking divorce on the ground that the husband was unemployed, the woman also alleged that her husband is an alcoholic and used to physically abuse her and demanded money.
Also Read: Kerala court convicts man who killed wife using cobra
Both parties belong to poor backgrounds and their marriage was solemnised when the husband was 19 and the wife was 13. Even after 2005, he didn’t take his wife to the matrimonial home until November 2014 when she secured a job with the Delhi Police.
"The continued distance between the parties even after the appellant (wife) attained majority would, in itself, have caused trauma and resulted in cruelty to the appellant apart from everything else... (the) circumstance probabalises the stand of the appellant, that the respondent (husband) harassed the appellant to pocket her income, since he was himself unemployed," said the court.
The court further added, "The respondent, it appears, viewed the appellant as a cash cow and became interested in her only after she got the job with the Delhi Police. Such brazenly materialistic attitude of the respondent, with no emotional ties, would have in itself caused mental agony and trauma to the appellant sufficient to constitute cruelty to her.”
Also Read: Patna serial blasts case: NIA court sentences death penalty to four, life imprisonment for two
Opposing the dissolution of marriage, the husband said he funded his wife’s education because of which she was able to secure the job.
Noting that the woman since 2014 has been living with her parents, the court said that it was "obvious that all her expenses for living and upbringing would have been borne by her parents" and that there was no material to second the opposing argument.
"From our interaction with the respondent, it has become absolutely clear to us that the interest of the respondent in continuing with the relationship is only because the appellant has a job with Delhi Police, and he views the alleged expenditure - which he claimed he has incurred on the education of the appellant (and which is disputed by the appellant), as an investment, which would not bear fruit in case parties were to part ways with judicial intervention," the court noted in its order.