sympathy

Bombay High Court

divorce application

marital status

physical harassment

Court grants 62-yr-old man divorce against ‘old, ill’ wife who filed two harassment cases against him, family.Observing that it couldn’t deny a husband divorce on grounds ofsought by the wife, therejected a 56-year-old woman’s plea against her husband’s. The woman, in her submission, had used her “old age and fragile health” as means to reap sympathy from the court and said that she needed herto be intact with her government servant husband “for various benefits”.A division bench of Justices KK Tated and Sarang Kotwal, while ruling in favour of the husband, granted him divorce earlier this week and observed that “the ground of sympathy cannot be a consideration for deciding the Appeal.”The court was hearing a 62-year-old man’s plea challenging the Mumbai Family Court’s decision of denying him a divorce. The couple, who have been married for close to 45 years, has been engaged in an arduous and lengthy legal tussle of cases filed against him by the wife.In 1996, she filed for divorce on the grounds that her husband was in an adulterous relationship. She, however, did not make the other woman a party to her case, nor did she pursue the case further. A year later, she filed another case of harassment against him, but the court did not find any merit in her case and quashed all charges and acquitted the man in 2004. The next year, in 2005, she filed one more case ofagainst not only the husband but also his brother and sister. This time too, her charges did not hold water and the three siblings were acquitted.The man used this history of their prolonged legal tussle, which “amounted to cruelty on him by his wife”, as the main reason for divorce.The wife, however, argued that since she has challenged her husband’s acquittal in 1997 case, and the case is still ongoing, the husband cannot use it as a point in his favour.After exhausting all her other arguments, the woman had also submitted that since she was old and wasn’t keeping well, she needed to remain married to her husband for the medical and post-retirement benefits he availed on account of his government job.“Though her appeal in harassment case is pending, the fact remains that the competent trial courts have found that the appellant (husband) or his brothers and sister have not committed the offences. These facts show that he had suffered harassment and ignominy of having been taken into custody for 8 days. That certainly would amount to cruelty,” the bench observed and granted the divorce.