Bombay High Court rejects divorce petition that pleads cruelty saying wife would not cover head with pallu, or wear mangalsutra and sindoor
In an astonishing show of entitled, a man filed for divorce in the Bombay High Court on grounds of cruelty, saying his wife would not cover her head with a pallu, sometimes did not wear a mangalsutra and sindoor. His mother, in an earlier petition, had deposed saying the bride enjoyed eating in restaurants and social outings. How the wife feels about this is unknown, but the couple has been living apart for 16 years. She walked out of the marital home in 2000 with their daughter, alleging harassment.
The Bombay HC rejected the divorce petition saying that times have changed and women cannot be forced into a traditional mold. "In 21st century," a division bench of Justice Vasanti A Naik and Justice VM Deshpande said, refusing to grant the divorce decree, "a man would not be entitled to seek a divorce solely on these grounds. A woman cannot be expected to cover her head with a pallu in this century. Merely because a woman sometimes removes her mangalsutra and vermilion on her forehead, a man cannot seek the severance of the matrimonial ties."
The spouses married in 1995 and have been living separately since 2000. The husband had filed a divorce petition in the family court in 2006, which was rejected. Thus he moved the High Court.
The man's mother had deposed in the family court. The bench had then rejected her evidence, saying, "This, even if it would have been pleaded by the husband as a ground [for divorce], would not constitute cruelty as a young married girl would sometimes like to go for an outing and would like to eat in a restaurant."
The court also rejected the grounds of desertion levelled by the husband, who said the wife walked out of their matrimonial home with their child. "It is not possible that a married woman would simply leave the matrimonial home never to return without any reason," the court had said.
The HC rejected the husband's appeal saying, "We find that family court was justified in holding in the circumstances of the case that wife had not treated husband with cruelty, and that she had not deserted him."
THE JUDGMENT
"In the 21st century, a man would not be entitled to seek a divorce solely on these grounds. A woman cannot be expected to cover her head with a pallu in this century. Merely because a woman sometimes removes her mangalsutra and vermilion on her forehead, a man cannot seek the severance of the matrimonial ties."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Uncovered head")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}