New Delhi, Oct. 16: The Supreme Court has ruled that attempting suicide to blackmail a spouse, making false allegations of an extra-marital affair or compelling one's husband to sever ties with his parents amount to "cruelty" that can be a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955.
The court termed as "terrifying and horrible" the conduct of K. Meena while granting her husband, Narendra, a divorce in a matrimonial dispute. The couple are from Karnataka.
A bench of Justices A.R. Dave and L. Nageswara Rao passed the order while setting aside a Karnataka High Court ruling that in March 2006 had reversed the divorce granted to Narendra by a trial court in November 2001 on the said three grounds.
"Respondent wife had locked herself in the bathroom and had poured kerosene on herself so as to commit suicide, are not in dispute. Fortunately for the appellant (husband), because of the noise and disturbance, even the neighbours of the appellant rushed to help and the door of the bathroom was broken open and the respondent was saved. Had she been successful in her attempt to commit suicide, then one can foresee the consequences and the plight of the appellant because in that event the appellant would have been put to immense difficulties because of the legal provisions.
"We feel that there was no fault on the part of the appellant nor was there any reason for the respondent wife to make an attempt to commit suicide. No husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life," Justice Dave, writing the judgment, said.
The husband was granted a divorce by the trial court after he complained that his wife made his life miserable by threatening suicide, pressuring him to break away from his parents and set up an independent family and accusing him of having an extra-marital relationship with the maid.
The apex court noted that evidence on record showed that the family was virtually maintained from the husband's income and it was not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from his parents at the insistence of the wife, especially when he was the only earning member in the family.
"A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family.
"In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her.
"In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary considerations, the respondent wife wanted to get her husband separated from his family.
"A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which the respondent wanted the appellant to be separated from the family - the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the appellant," Justice Dave said.
The apex court said unsubstantiated allegations of an extra-marital affair was also a form of cruelty warranting grant of divorce to the aggrieved spouse.