New Delhi: Jharkhand High Court has given an important verdict in a case related to trust, respect and mental harassment in marital relations. The court said that if the husband puts pressure on his wife to accept his extramarital affair and view the other woman as a ‘younger sister’, depending on the circumstances, it may amount to a serious form of mental cruelty. In the case, both husband and wife are doctors by profession and have been living separately since September 2019. The High Court interfered with the decision of the family court and dissolved the marriage.
What was the dispute between husband and wife?
Both of them were married in February 2018. After marriage, he started living in Dhanbad. The husband was working at Tundi Primary Health Centre, while the wife worked at Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). According to the wife, tension in the relationship started increasing shortly after the marriage and finally the two separated in September 2019. The main reason for the dispute was the husband’s alleged affair with another woman.
What allegations did the wife make?
The wife alleged that the husband had an extramarital affair with a widow. After the family’s intervention, the husband reportedly gave a written assurance that he would end all contact with the woman. However, the wife said that the relationship continued even after this. She also alleged that the husband expected her to accept the other woman as her ‘younger sister’. According to the wife, she was also beaten up when she protested, following which she suffered health problems like slip-disk and traumatic osteoarthritis.
What did the court say on the medical documents?
The husband rejected the allegations and questioned the credibility of the medical prescriptions issued from the wife’s father’s clinic. The High Court said that the medical documents cannot be rejected merely because they were issued from the clinic of the wife’s father. According to the court, the authenticity and significance of the documents must be assessed in conjunction with other evidence and the overall circumstances of the case. The wife’s allegations were viewed in the context of the facts recorded in the court and the evidence available.
What was lacking in the decision of the Family Court?
The High Court said that the family court did not pay sufficient attention to the overall picture of the case by looking at the evidence in separate parts. In matrimonial disputes, the facts are evaluated on the basis of the principle of ‘preponderance of probabilities’. The court also considered that the husband had obtained an ex-parte order for restoration of conjugal rights in January 2023. However, despite this order, an independent assessment of the other facts and circumstances of the case was necessary.
What was the court’s comment regarding trust in marriage?
The Division Bench gave fundamental importance to mutual trust and respect in marital relationships. According to the court, pressurising a partner to accept a situation which hurts his/her self-respect and marital life can be the basis of mental cruelty. In this case the High Court ruled to dissolve the marriage. The decision is based on the specific facts and evidence of the case; this cannot be considered as a rule automatically applicable to every marital dispute.
