The Delhi High Court has granted divorce to a man 29 years after he became estranged from his wife, stating that the wife's letter telling him she wanted to divorce him and had found another man to marry falls within the definition of cruelty.

According to a news daily, the high court took the view that the husband would have suffered 'acute mental agony by the letter'. This, in spite of the fact that the woman in 1995 admitted the letter didn't contain a grain of truth and was only meant to 'jolt the husband out of his complacency.'

While the couple had married in 1980, the husband had left for the US in 1987 leaving behind his wife and a 4-year-old daughter.

The trial court had dissolved the marriage after the hearing. Upholding the decision of the trial court, Justice Waziri noted, "For a husband living away from his wife since 1987, to have received a letter from her intimating him about her unequivocal decision to dissolve the marriage and marry another man would have been a pain as grievous as any to endure. Such an element of rejection, coupled with brunt of emotional infidelity by the wife, can break the spirit of the husband to continue marital ties."

Challenging the decision in high court, the wife had argued that the letter was a "one-off, stray incident and could not be a ground for divorce". She pleaded that it was an act of desperation since she had been wanting to live with her husband for several years.

The friend mentioned in her letter never existed, and she had no intention of a second marriage. Also, there was not a single act of violence committed on her part to warrant a charge of cruelty, said the defence.

But appearing for the husband, advocate Manjit Singh Ahluwalia countered her argument, saying she did think of divorce as she drew up an affidavit to finalise her legal plan. The letter was written in 1990 while the divorce was granted five years later. However, the court observed that during this period she never tried to explain to her husband why she had written the letter.

In its verdict, the High Court took into account the stand of the wife that the letter was a mere threat but said its import 'could only evoke pain, distress, rejection and self-doubt in any reasonable husband' and termed it as a 'telling testimony of cruelty'.