Del HC | Materialistic attitude of husband considering wife as cash cow: Is it a ground to dissolve marriage? Read to know

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., noted in a matrimonial matter that the wife was being viewed as a cash cow and the husband became interested in her only after she got a job with Delhi Police.

Instant appeal was directed against the decision of lower court preferred by the appellant wife against the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to seek a decree of divorce.

On finding no grounds of cruelty or desertion, the family court dismissed the divorce petition established by the appellant-wife.

At the time of marriage, the appellant was minor, whereas the respondent was 19 years old. Since the time of marriage till the time she secured a job, she was residing at her parental home. Respondent showed no interest in taking the appellant till the time she secured a job.

Appellants started living with the respondent and experienced that he was unemployed and was an alcoholic, he even used to physically abuse the appellant and demanded money from her. Further, she stated that the respondent and his family were only interested in her salary.

Adding to the above, she stated that since she was subjected to physical and verbal abuse, and she was also finding it difficult to balance her work and family life with an abusive, alcoholic, and demanding husband, the relationship between the parties sored, and the appellant was kicked out from her matrimonial home.

For the above-stated reasons, the appellant had preferred the divorce petition.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court on making certain queries noted that the respondents claim that he had funded the education of the appellant and it was on account of the fact that the appellant got educated and found a job in Delhi Police, so what will happen to the amounts spent by him.

Further in Court’s opinion, the respondent was absolutely clear that the respondent only wanted to continue with the relationship on account of the fact that the appellant had a job with Delhi Police, and he viewed the alleged expenditure on the wife as an investment, which would not bear fruit in case parties were to part ways with judicial intervention.

“…respondent is primarily eyeing the income of the respondent which she derives on account of her job from Delhi Police.”

The continued distance between the parties even after the appellant attained majority would, in itself, have caused trauma and resulted in cruelty to the appellant apart from everything else.

Bench expressed that the 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. Court cannot ignore, that generally, it is the desire of every married woman – particularly belonging to the economic strata to which the parties belong, to get married and start a family.

In the present case, the husband was only interested in the income of the wife and not in nurturing the marriage.

In matrimonial matters, the quality and quantity of evidence required to accept the plea by one or the other party, cannot be same as that required in criminal proceedings.

Elaborating further, the Court expressed that the standard of proof in matrimonial proceedings is founded upon the preponderance of probabilities, and not upon a fact being established beyond all reasonable doubts. Looking at the overall circumstances, Court decided that the appellant was able to establish the ground of cruelty and desertion.

Hence, the Court opined that there is a clear case of perpetration of mental cruelty against the respondent and hence the marriage of the parties be dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. [Sanno Kumari v. Krishan Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4914, decided on 28-10-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the appellant: Pranaynath Jha, Advocate along with appellant in person.

For the respondent: Jitender Ratta, Advocate along with respondent in person.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.