

MUMBAI: A 37-year-old Dadar-based businessman was granted divorce on grounds of "cruelty" as his wife stole and hypothecated almost 200gm of his family's gold jewellery.

A city court observed that her conduct had caused damage to the trust factor in the relationship. "Love, faith and trust are the founding pillars for strengthening marital relations," it said.

"The respondent (wife) had taken away the gold ornaments without permission of the petitioner (husband) and misappropriated it. She has left the matrimonial home and resided separately without reason. Such conduct has deprived the petitioner from enjoying matrimonial bliss. It clearly constitutes mental cruelty," the court said.

The husband had filed a plea in August last year. The couple had married in May 2007 but have no children.

He alleged that his wife never treated his family and him well. He said that on August 18, 2009, he noticed the jewellery was missing when he opened the cupboard. On questioning her, she allegedly said that she had lent it to a cousin who would return it soon. But it was never returned.

He claimed that she repeatedly threatened to implicate them in false criminal cases. She left their matrimonial home on February 14, 2010, and he filed the petition after repeated attempts to get her back.

The court sent summons to the woman but she failed to appear. The court decided to pass an ex parte order on January 19.

The husband presented his evidence on oath and the money lender to whom the gold was mortgaged testified too. The witness said that the woman had come to hypothecate the jewellery for money in November and December 2007. He said that she never returned to his shop.

The court observed that the evidence showed the woman's conduct post-marriage. "It shows that the respondent (wife) was insulting the petitioner (husband) and his family. She avoided talking to them. The petitioner's mother used to do the entire housework. Instead of helping her, the respondent used to wake up very last," the court pointed out.

It said that the term "cruelty" cannot be decided on the basis of a straight-jacket formula but on facts and circumstances of each case. The court said the man had behaved positively but the woman did not respond similarly.

