Delhi High Court (Express photo: Ravi Kanojia/File)
Nearly three years after his death, a man in his 50s has won a legal battle in the Delhi High Court, which upheld a trial court order allowing him divorce on the ground that his wife was involved in an “adulterous relationship”. The man’s wife, who left him in 2001, had appealed against the trial court’s February 2010 verdict, by which the marriage between the couple was dissolved on the ground of cruelty. She had also deposed that she was tortured by her husband over dowry, and told the court that she could not conceive a child. The woman had contended that her husband had made false allegations of adultery and of her marrying someone else.
The man, who used to work with a government bank, died in August 2015 and was survived by his 90-year-old mother, who had appeared in the court and had stated that she very old and unable to contest this appeal. The High Court, however, appointed an amicus in the case and moved the woman’s appeal.
Justice J R Midha brushed aside the wife’s contention and observed that the case by the husband — that his wife had treated him with cruelty — was true, which was sufficient to dissolve the marriage between the parties.
“Whereas the entire defence set up by the wife is not believed to be true and is, therefore, disproved. This court agrees with the reasoning and findings of the trial court that the wife had an unholy relationship… which amounts to cruelty,” the judge said.
The High Court further said that the husband had also proved that his wife used to abuse and remain outdoors without intimation, which clearly depicts cruel behaviour.
It said that there is no infirmity in the well-reasoned findings of the trial court.
The trial court had held that adultery is having sexual relationship outside of matrimony. “The husband has shown his anguish due to adulterous relationship,” the trial court had said, adding that the husband was able to make out a case of cruelty with the help of photographs.
The couple had married in November 1987. But the husband, in 2004, had moved the trial court seeking separation from his wife.