Wife Violent Behaviour Makes Life Living Hell – Divorce Allow : P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted a man's request for divorce, noting that having a spouse who suffers from an incurable mental illness and exhibits "irresponsible and violent behaviour" makes the victim spouse's life "a daily hell."

The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Deepak Gupta disregarded the trial court's conclusions that had rejected the man's request for a divorce and stated that the trial court had not taken into account the medical evidence regarding his wife's mental condition.

"The respondent's psychological issue was unequivocally pronounced to be treatable but not curable by doctors PW3 and PW5, respectively. This demonstrates that the respondent would continue to experience the sickness or condition throughout her life and would not be able to overcome it. The petitioner will not look for consolation throughout his entire marriage. It is not the kind of condition where the patient would be cured with time and treatment. Throughout his relationship with the respondent, the petitioner would undoubtedly experience ongoing agony and pain if the respondent continued his unreasonable and improper behaviour against him and his family "The court stated.

The article continued by saying that the medical data, rather, corroborated the man's claim that his wife has a mental illness and, as a result, behaves badly toward him and his family and gets even worse after the birth of the child.

The respondent disregarded his or her matrimonial duties. She also ceased taking care of the child. The answer also acknowledged that she had depression. She did, however, claim that the severe treatment she received from the petitioner and his family members in exchange for their demands for dowry and their insistence that she receive a share of her father's wealth caused her to experience mental distress. She is otherwise healthy mentally. She also acknowledged that she has been receiving treatment for depression. The petitioner's allegations have also been substantially supported by the respondent's admission, "The court stated.

Earlier, Additional District Judge Amritsar had rejected the man's request for a divorce on the grounds of supposed cruelty under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

According to the petitioner, he wed in 2011 and discovered that his wife's behaviour "was not normal" after about four months of marriage. He claimed that following the birth of the child, her behaviour became "more furious." He claimed that she even made threats to murder herself and the other members of the family as well as to accuse him and his family of making up crimes.

The spouse claimed that she has an incurable mental illness and that she had threatened to call the police anytime he made moves toward her. He also claimed that she had refused to allow them to have a physical relationship. The court was informed that she did not even care for the small child.

"The degree of the respondent's mental suffering led the victim to consider suicide, but he was unable to act on these thoughts because of the child. Because of the respondent, the petitioner and his family are under unimaginable emotional hardship "The court heard an argument about it.

Because the court below did not take into account the expert testimony of the doctors proving that the petitioner's wife had an incurable mental illness, the petitioner challenged the impugned ruling.

The respondent asserted that the petitioner had tormented and degraded her in connection with dowry demands, refuting all of his claims.

The division bench stated that the trial court had noted that the respondent-wife had not proven that the petitioner and his family members had ever treated her cruelly or demanded that she take a share of the estate belonging to her father. The trial court had further noted that she had failed to prove that her husband and other members of her family had stolen her dowry items.

"The respondent's claim that she has developed mental depression as a result of the cruelty shown to her appears untrue in light of these findings. This essentially supports the petitioner's claim that the respondent has a mental illness. In light of the aforementioned facts, it is noted that the learned trial court erred in ruling against the petitioner with regard to his accusation of the respondent's spousal wrongdoing "The bench remarked.

The court took notice of the fact that the man had previously filed for divorce as well, but for a second chance at marriage, he negotiated the situation with the respondent despite the fact that she had brought a criminal case against him and his family.

"The petitioner made it clear during her testimony that the respondent's negative behaviour persisted even after the compromise. The continuation of the offending spouse's poor behaviour that was previously excused by the other spouse on the condition that such behaviour would not be repeated would not constitute a case of condonation. The respondent has acknowledged in her testimony account that she filed a criminal case of dowry demand against the petitioner-husband following the filing of the current divorce petition. This again raises the possibility that the respondent mistreated the petitioner "The court stated.

The court granted the request for a divorce on the grounds of "cruelty," stating that the parties' seven-year separation during which time they have been in litigation proves that their marriage is no longer viable and cannot be saved due to the animosity between them. "The parties' marriage is already dead and cannot be restored by a court decision. Such a protracted separation will inevitably result in an impenetrable gap between the parties and be a constant source of mental torture for the marriage. There doesn't seem to be any need to force the parties to cohabit. The result of continuing such an ineffective marriage that has long since lost its efficacy is sure to cause the spouses tremendous suffering "The court stated.

Ajay Mehra  vs Gauri