New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Apr 01, 2020-Wednesday
-°C

Humidity
-

Wind
-

Select city

Metro cities - Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata

Other cities - Noida, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi

ADVERTISEMENT
Home / Delhi News / Delhi HC says habitually doubting husband of having affair is basis for divorce

Delhi HC says habitually doubting husband of having affair is basis for divorce

Justice JR Midha granted divorce to the couple and set aside the judgment of the trial court where the couple were allowed judicial separation even as it rejected the plea to grant divorce to the couple residing in London.

delhi Updated: May 06, 2018 10:05 IST
Richa Banka
Richa Banka
Hindustan Times, New Delhi
Delhi high court in New Delhi.
Delhi high court in New Delhi.(HT File Photo)

Habitually suspecting husband of having affairs with other women amounts to mental cruelty and is grounds for divorce. The Delhi High Court recently set aside a lower court order granting judicial separation to a couple with about 30 years of marriage because the wife was overtly suspicious of her husband that made it difficult for the couple to live together.

Justice JR Midha granted divorce to the couple and set aside the judgment of the trial court where the couple were allowed judicial separation even as it rejected the plea to grant divorce to the couple residing in London.

“The respondent (wife) has levelled false allegations of an illicit relationship between the petitioner (husband) and his sister-in-law in the written statement which clearly amounts to cruelty,” the court said while setting aside the decision of the trial court granting judicial separation instead of dissolution of marriage as sought by the husband.

Judicial separation is an instrument devised under law to afford some time for introspection to both the parties to a troubled marriage. The couple granted judicial separation are not allowed to marry again. On the other hand, divorce allows you separation and subsequently the right to marry again.

The court’s direction came while hearing two pleas by the couple married in 1978, where the husband had challenged the trial court’s decision to grant judicial separation and not granting divorce. The wife, on the other hand, had sought setting aside the order of the trial court granting judicial separation as she wanted to stay with her husband.

According to the plea filed by the husband, his wife was extremely “suspicious” and often accused him of flirting. She would abuse him, throw tantrums and behave irresponsibly towards his family members. The plea contended that in 1999, soon after the death of the husband’s brother, the wife accused the husband of having an affair with the wife of his brother.