Court grants divorce saying financial instability could lead to 'mental cruelty'

A two-judge division bench of the Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, held that the term 'financial instability' falls under the realm of ‘mental cruelty’ of a partner while granting divorce to a woman.

Hearing the divorce plea, Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said the financial instability of a husband, due to not being involved in a business or job, could lead to his indulgence in any other activities which may then result in mental disturbance and can be put under ‘mental cruelty’ for his wife.

"The endeavours of the respondent (husband) to be able to sustain himself had admittedly failed. Such a kind of financial instability is bound to result in mental anxiety on account of the husband being not settled in any business or profession which resulted in other vices, can be termed as a constant source of mental cruelty to the appellant. The term 'mental cruelty' is wide enough to take within its ambit the 'financial instability,” the two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court noted.

The court order came on a petition filed by a woman against a family court rejecting her divorce application.

According to the plea, the couple got married in 1989. But their marriage turned rocky in 1996 after the wife found out that her husband was not a graduate and had no source of subsistence other than the income of his mother.

In its plea, the woman also highlighted that at the time of marriage, she was informed by the man’s family that he was a graduate and had an earnest source of income. She also alleged that the man inflicted violence upon her when she opposed his activities such as gambling and others.

Sharing further in her plea, the woman added that she did not get medical care and attention during the marriage.

The woman also added that she got pregnant twice, but suffered miscarriage once, while the second time it was stillbirth.

While giving the judgment, the court considered all the allegations by the woman. However, none of these alleged acts can be proved by evidence.

In its judgment, the court noted that the real reason for the strained relationship between the couple was the financial instability of the husband.

“The very fact that the parties have been living separately since November 1996 and no conciliation has taken place for the past 27 years, proves that the parties were unable to sustain their matrimonial relationship. For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company and of a conjugal relationship can be interpreted only as amounting to mental cruelty," the court said in its judgment.