Gauhati High Court grants divorce for wife’s refusal to wear Sindoor

0
101

The man had appealed to the High Court against the family court order. (Representative)

Guwahati:

Noting that the refusal to wear “shaka“(conch shell bracelet) and”sindoor“(vermilion) according to the customs of a Hindu married woman amounting to her refusal to accept the marriage, the High Court of Gauhati granted the divorce to a man.

After hearing a matrimonial appeal filed by the husband, a division panel comprising Chief Justice Ajai Lamba and Justice Soumitra Saikia quashed a family court order that dismissed his divorce petition on the grounds that no cruelty existed. ‘was observed on the part of the wife. against him.

The man had appealed to the High Court against the family court order.

“… his refusal to wear”sakha and sindoor“projects her to be single and / or signifies her refusal to accept marriage with the appellant (husband). The categorical position of the respondent (wife) indicates that the respondent clearly intends not to continue his married life “with the appellant,” said the High Court in the June 19 judgment.

The man and woman were married on February 17, 2012, but started fighting as soon as she started demanding that she not live with her family members. Therefore, the two have been living separately since June 30, 2013.

She had filed a complaint against her husband and members of her family accusing them of torturing her, but the allegation of having subjected her to cruelty has not been confirmed, said the bench.

“Such acts of bringing criminal charges on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations against the husband and / or his family members constitute cruelty as detained by the Supreme Court,” they said in the order.

The family court completely ignored the fact that the woman coerced and prevented her husband from fulfilling his legal obligations to her elderly mother under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare Act 2007 parents and the elderly, said the judges.

“Such evidence is sufficient to be interpreted as an act of cruelty,” added the order.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here