The Delhi High Court has ruled that attempting suicide and then trying to put the blame on the husband and his family members is an “act of extreme cruelty” by the woman.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that in such instances, the family remains under the constant threat of being implicated in false cases.
The bench stated that the Supreme Court has also held that the repeated threats to commit suicide amount to cruelty.
The court passed the order while upholding a family court order granting divorce to a man on the grounds of cruelty by his wife.
The division bench noted that the marriage between the couple was troubled from the beginning, and the wife even consumed a mosquito repellent liquid in an attempt to commit suicide but later tried to wriggle out of the situation by claiming that she was compelled to do it.
The woman alleged that since she was not being provided with a proper diet, she was administered the liquid by her husband on the pretext of it being a nutritious tonic, the court recorded, adding that she, however, subsequently accepted that her husband was at his place of work at the time of the incident.
“Such conduct of the appellant in attempting suicide and then trying to put the blame on the husband and his family members was an act of extreme cruelty as the family remained under the constant threat of being implicated in false cases,” the court said.
“The repeated threats to commit suicide and an attempt to commit suicide were held to be an action amounting to cruelty by the Supreme court…. (In another case,) it was observed (by the top court) that in case the wife succeeds in committing suicide, one can only imagine how the poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life. Such a threat of attempting suicide amounts to cruelty,” the court added.
The court noted that during the two years of their matrimonial life, the parties barely resided together for 10 months in all and even during that time there were various acts of the cruelty of being subjected to false complaints and civil as well as criminal litigation, committed by the appellant towards the respondent.
“We therefore, conclude that the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly held that the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and granted divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the HMA”, the court said in its order.
The court also said although the wife has a legal right to take recourse for any wrong, making unsubstantiated allegations of having been subjected to dowry demands or acts of cruelty by the husband or his family members and getting criminal trials initiated against them are also “clearly acts of cruelty”.
Comments
0 comment