Called ‘black-complexioned’ and ‘fatty-shaped’: Why man’s divorce plea failed | Raipur News
BILASPUR: Calling a husband “black complexioned” or “fatty shaped” may be hurtful, but such remarks alone cannot constitute sufficient grounds for divorce, the Chhattisgarh high court has held while dismissing a man’s appeal seeking to end his marriage.The court said the husband had failed to substantiate his allegations of cruelty and desertion against his wife with sufficient evidence.A division bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput was hearing the man’s appeal against a family court order that had rejected his plea for divorce and directed him to return his wife’s stridhan.The couple had married on March 7, 2019. The husband alleged that his wife behaved in a hostile manner, threatened to implicate him and frequently went to her parental home.He also claimed that she left him after returning from Rajasthan and refused to resume their marriage despite his efforts to bring her back.He relied on the fact that his wife had been living separately since December 2019 and had initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against him and his family.The wife denied the allegations. She claimed that her husband was in an illicit relationship with another woman, had started consuming alcohol and abused her.She also alleged that he did not properly care for her during her pregnancy and that her mother had taken her to Raigarh for treatment when she fell ill.The high court examined the evidence and found that the husband’s allegations were not supported by sufficient proof.“Though the appellant/husband has made several allegations against the respondent/wife yet none of them have been substantiated by leading any cogent evidence of the witnesses. Of course, he has alleged that the respondent/wife used to brand him as being a black complexioned or a fatty shaped but they cannot be taken to be sufficient ground for granting a decree of divorce to him.”The court also considered the circumstances cited by the husband regarding the wife’s stay away from him. It noted that the wife had said she had gone to Rajasthan to attend a relative’s marriage along with her husband, mother-in-law and mother. The court also found that when she fell ill, her husband had taken her for treatment before her mother took her to Raigarh.On the allegation of desertion, the bench said the husband had failed to establish that his wife was staying with her parents without a reasonable excuse.It noted evidence suggesting that members of the husband’s family had sent her away with her mother after her miscarriage.The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh, which laid down illustrative instances relevant to determining mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes. It said the circumstances in the present case did not bring the wife’s conduct within that category.The bench also said that merely making several allegations could not justify divorce when those allegations were not backed by evidence.“May be, the allegations are many in number by the appellant/husband but in the absence of any pinpointed evidence to substantiate the same, they cannot be made basis for granting decree of divorce in his favour. As regards the element of cruelty at the hands of respondent/wife, the elements required to constitute the same appear to be totally amiss.”The court further found that the husband had failed to establish the intention required to prove desertion. It noted that the wife and her mother had consistently stated that he had not made efforts to take her back after she went to her parental home.The high court therefore found no reason to interfere with the family court’s decision.The bench dismissed the husband’s appeal seeking divorce, upheld the finding that cruelty and desertion had not been proved and also upheld the direction to return the wife’s stridhan given by her parents.The appeal was dismissed without imposing any costs.
