When woman does not intend to be a part of marriage alliance compelling husband to stay married, this may be construed to be harassment inflicted upon him and his family
Guwahati: In a judgement, Gauhati High Court observed that a Hindu married woman’s refusal to wear 'sakha' – bangles made of conch-shell – and 'sindoor' (vermillion) as per the marriage rituals and customs, signifies her refusal to accept her marriage to the husband, while granting her husband’s plea for divorce.
The bench of Chief Justice Ajai Lamba and Justice Soumitra Saika made the observation that when the women don't intend to be a part of the marriage alliance compelling the husband to stay married to the woman under such circumstances, this may be construed to be harassment inflicted upon him and his family.
The order, which allowed the man’s appeal against a family court order that didn’t grant him permission to divorce his wife. The husband among other things had said that his wife refused to follow customary rituals of a Hindu wedding, and wear the bearing of a married woman and preferred to project herself as an unmarried woman.
The wife, had categorically stated during her cross-examination that, "That I am not wearing/putting sindoor right now because I don’t consider him as my husband."
Refusal to live with in-laws
The wife wanted to live away from the matrimonial home, within a month after their marriage in February 2020. This led to constant quarrels, and the husband alleged that their conjugal relationship worsened because of her demand to live away in a separate accommodation.
"Such act of forcing a son to live away from his family, the court said, may be construed as an act of cruelty on part of the respondent-wife," reported LiveLaw.in
"Under the circumstances, it is seen that the Family Court completely ignored this fact brought out during the evidence that the respondent [wife] compelled and prevented the appellant [husband] from performing his statutory duties towards his aged mother under the provisions of the 2007 Act. Such evidence is sufficient to be construed as an act of cruelty as the non-compliance/non-adherence to the provisions of the 2007 Act has criminal consequences leading to punishment or imprisonment as well as fine," it added.