A marriage cannot survive if a spouse deprives the other of conjugal relationship and doing so is also an act of cruelty, the court said. New Delhi: No experience can be more harrowing for a husband than to see his wife behave like a widow while he is alive, the Delhi High Court said, adding that such a conduct amounts to “extreme cruelty”. A marriage cannot survive if a spouse deprives the other of conjugal relationship and doing so is also an act of cruelty, the court said. “Nothing can be a more harrowing experience for a husband than to see his wife act as a widow during his lifetime, that too in a situation where he was seriously injured and expected nothing more than care and compassion from his significant other half. Undeniably, such conduct of the appellant/wife can only be termed as an act of extreme cruelty towards the respondent/husband,” a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said. The High Court's judgment came while dismissing a woman's appeal challenging a family court's decision granting divorce in her husband's favour, holding that she acted with cruelty towards him. “We thus, conclude that the evidence on record proved that there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, police reports and criminal trial can only be termed as mental cruelty. “The marital discord between the parties has pinnacled to complete loss of faith, trust, understanding, love and affection between the parties. This dead relationship has become infested with acrimony, irreconcilable differences and protracted litigations; any insistence to continue this relationship would only be perpetuating further cruelty upon both the parties,” the bench said. It said the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal relationship. The couple got married in April 2009 and had a daughter in October 2011. The woman left her matrimonial home a few days before she delivered the child. The man filed a divorce petition in the family court claiming that since the beginning of their married life, his wife was indifferent to him and had no interest in discharging her matrimonial obligations. He alleged that after she refused to do household chores, his father was compelled to take care of the routine tasks, like cooking meals. The woman denied the allegations and claimed it was her husband who encouraged her to go to her parental home from where she returned after three days. She also rejected the allegation that she stayed away from her matrimonial home for 147 days. The man claimed his wife would get annoyed on petty issues and quarrel with his family. Once she refused to keep a fast on "karwachauth" since he had not got her mobile phone recharged, the man alleged. Married Hindu women fast for their husband's long life and well-being on "karwachauth". Referring to another incident, the man said in April 2011, when he had a slipped disc, his wife, instead of taking care of him, removed the vermillion from her forehead, broke her bangles and wore a white suit, declaring herself a widow. The High Court called it “an ultimate act of rejection of matrimonial relationship, reflecting her intention of repudiation of the matrimonial relationship”. The bench clarified that fasting or not fasting on "karwachauth" may be an individual choice and, if dispassionately considered, may not be termed as an act of cruelty. It said having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties would not amount to cruelty and not be sufficient to sever a marital tie. “However, when coupled with the conduct of the wife and in the circumstances as proved by the husband in the present case, it is established that non-conforming with the prevalent rituals of Hindu culture, which symbolises love and respect for the husband as well as the matrimonial relationship, fortifies the irresistible conclusion that the wife had no respect for the husband and their marital bond,” it said. Listen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com

The court said it also reflected that the wife had no intentions of continuing the marriage.