Bombay HC grants divorce: ‘accusing the spouse for failure to conceive amounts to cruelty’

A two-judge bench of the Bombay High court comprising of Justices K K Tated and S K Kotwal has granted divorce to a 62 years old man on the ground that & lsquo constantly blaming one spouse for failure to conceive amounts to cruelty'. The couple got married in Mumbai in the year 1972, after which they stayed in Andheri (Mumbai). However, they got separated in the year 1993 due to constant fights and discord. After which the man had filed divorce plea in the lower court in 1995. The same was later refused by it in the year 2010. Aggrieved by the order of lower court, the man filed an appeal in the High court of Bombay. The man in his plea filed before the lower court and high court, alleged that his 56-year-old wife has never maintained cordial relations with him. He also claimed that she had filed several frivolous complaints against him and has also blamed him for not being able to conceive. The advocate representing the man told the court that all the criminal cases filed by the wife have already resulted in his acquittal. And her act of involving his family members and employer has caused him much mental trauma. The wife, however, maintained her stand and said that the cases filed were all genuine and there is already a pending suit in the High court, filed against the order of acquittal of his husband. She further alleged that her husband has been in an adulterous relationship and hence they have been staying apart. The court while dismissing the wife's contentions held that the man had suffered mental agony not only owing to the “ unreasonable criminal proceedings” initiated against him but also because the wife kept blaming him for her not being able to conceive, “ which also amounts to cruelty and hence it was not possible for him to cohabit with the wife.” The court also kept into consideration the fact that in one of the criminal complaints filed by the wife against husband, the petitioner and his family members had to spend eight days in the police custody and were later acquitted by the court. The bench held that “ these facts show that the husband has suffered harassment and ignominy of having been taken into custody. This certainly would have amounted to cruelty, particularly when the allegations were proved to be false and unsubstantiated,”