Absence Of a Healthy Sexual Relationship Is Considered Detrimental To The Marriage – Divorce Granted – Del. HC

174
0
Share:
national woman tax minor Evidence Copy maintenance police Landlord landlord claim Eviction ground Email Promotions judicial civil disclosure constable probate matrimonial relationship protection delhi cbse justice government automatic judiciary recovery government police view bail bail framing medical Rajya Sabha marriage matrimonial bank scale marriage bail wife decision national 67 copyright divorce plea under divorce fraud global documentsdocumentsvideo divorce sexual bail divorce validity sexual month friendlyfriendly suit disciplinary personal election case acquittal contract notice drug major day divorce teacher jewellers work honorable voluntary principle judgment Bail ordering wrestling remarks bail death criminal Cross- rape validity mother judicial wilful police daughters bail v eviction broad Examination wife land sexual marriage Delhi senior framing bail delhi guilty nationals bail

In a recent judgement , the High Court of Delhi upheld a lower court’s decision granting divorce to a husband on the grounds of “cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”

The Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, stated that the “absence of a healthy sexual relationship is considered detrimental to the marriage.” The court further observed that the wife’s reluctance to have sexual relations with her husband amounted to an act of cruelty.

The case also involved allegations of false accusations. The wife had previously filed a rape case against the husband, leading to his acquittal. The court noted that such false complaints “constitute mental cruelty” and were an act of “extreme cruelty” against the husband.

The court also took into account the “irretrievable breakdown” of the marriage, observing that the couple had been separated since February 2014. The judgment stated, “For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company, proves that the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of conjugal relationship is an act of extreme cruelty.”

The wife had made counter-allegations of cruelty, claiming harassment for dowry and physical abuse. However, the court found these allegations to be unsupported by sufficient evidence.

The judgment cited several previous cases, including Mrs. Rita Nijhawan vs. Mr. Bal Kishan Nijhawan, AIR 1973 Del 200, and Vinita Saxena vs Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778, among others, to substantiate its decision.

 Date of Decision:22nd August, 2023

xxxx vs xxxx

Download Judgment

Share: