Mumbai: Dissolving the marriage of a couple on grounds of 'cruelty', the Bombay High Court observed that the strata of society to which the family belongs becomes relevant when considering these allegations.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Sharmila Deshmukh dissolved the marriage of the couple. The man had sought dissolution of the marriage after two years of marriage and 14 years of separation.
The court, however, upheld the family court's order awarding maintenance of Rs. 30,000 to the wife.
Court takes note of 'irresponsible, false, and baseless allegations'
The court observed, "While considering the conduct of the Respondent in the context of 'cruelty' as contemplated under the provisions of Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the strata of society to which the Petitioner belongs will also be relevant."
The court also took note of 'irresponsible, false, and baseless allegations' by the wife in the written statement as well as an FIR registered against the family after the divorce proceedings.
While allowing the divorce plea on the grounds of cruelty, the HC said: 'In the instant case, the Petitioner belongs to an affluent family, and the conduct of the Respondent (wife) alleging illicit relationships, dowry demands, and filthy abuse and assault against the Petitioner and his parents, to the extent of describing them as mean-minded and miserable persons, without being able to substantiate the allegations, has resulted in lowering the reputation of the Petitioner and his parents in society and constitutes cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.'
Despite the man's claim that he earned merely Rs. 10,000 from one of his family-owned businesses, the court upheld the Family Court's (FC) 2009 order directing him to give a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000 to the woman and also provide accommodation.
Court justifies maintenance
Justifying the maintenance, the HC said that it was evident that the man belonged to an affluent family engaged in various businesses like construction, hotels, and a nursing home. It also held that the man had failed to prove that the woman was employed. She was staying with her parents and two brothers.
'As there is no direct substantiated evidence on record regarding the monthly income of the Petitioner, this Court will have to be guided by the attending circumstances that demonstrate the affluent lifestyle of the Petitioner and his family members to determine the issue of monthly maintenance,' the court averred.
The couple married as per Hindu Vedic rites in 2007. In 2009, the husband filed for divorce before the FC, alleging cruelty.
In 2011, the wife approached the FC seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000, residence, and litigation costs.
