NEW DELHI: A woman repeatedly leaving her matrimonial home for no fault attributable to the husband amounts to cruelty, a ground for divorce, the Delhi high court said in a recent verdict granting divorce to the couple.

In its 23-page verdict, a bench of justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna allowed the husband’s petition against the family court’s order refusing to grant the couple a divorce, observing that the wife left the matrimonial home seven times, for periods ranging from three months to 10 months during their 19 years of marriage. The high court noted that the wife hadn’t contested the incidents of separation.

“It is a clear case where the respondent (wife) left the matrimonial home, from time to time, without there being any act or fault on the part of the appellant (husband). Such withdrawal by the respondent (wife) from time to time, are acts of mental cruelty to which the appellant (husband) was subjected, without any reason or justification,” the bench said in its verdict on April 2. The detailed judgment was released on Thursday.

“Admittedly, in this period of about 19 years, the parties had differences and there were seven acts of separation, each of about 3 to 10 months, which may add up to about 23-25 months in all,” the court noted.

“Marriage, personified as the essence of togetherness, blooms on the fertile soil of mutual support, devotion and allegiance. However, repeated acts of separation, akin to a relentless storm, only uproot this foundation, scattering seeds of discord that threaten the sanctity of the union. Amidst the tempest of distance and abandonment, this bond breaks beyond repair, leaving behind irreparable scars on the landscape of trust and commitment,” the court observed.

The court said that though there was no evidence to suggest wrongdoing on the husband’s part, there was material to indicate that the woman was dissatisfied with her mother-in-law’s behaviour leading her to feel unhappy in her matrimonial home.

The high court said there was overwhelming evidence to show that the wife subjected her husband to a life of uncertainty and there was no settlement and mental peace between them despite spending two decades together.

“The entire compendium of the evidence, as led by the respondent (wife) does not bring forth any act of cruelty on the part of the appellant; rather the entire evidence shows that the respondent was dissatisfied, unhappy with the conduct of his mother which made her so unhappy in the matrimonial home that she felt lack of space, control and respect in the house and she left the matrimonial home. We find that there is overwhelming evidence to show that it is the respondent, who subjected the appellant to a life of uncertainty with there being no settlement and mental peace in the matrimonial life, despite 20 years of being spent together. It’s a case of mental agony to the appellant entitling him to a divorce, on the ground of cruelty under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Act,” the court said.

The husband approached the high court against the family court’s decision of April 11, 2022 to not grant their divorce, alleging that there were at least six instances in 19 years when his wife left her matrimonial home.

The high court observed that the family judge had taken a myopic view by considering each incident as an independent window. “We, thus, find that the learned family judge has erred in analysing the life of the parties by taking a myopic view and by considering each incident as an independent window, when in fact it is the journey of the parties through their matrimonial life, which is determinative of their compatibility, progressiveness and growth,” the court said.