Back
Holds Father Boycotting Daughter's Wedding Constitutes to Wife
In a significant ruling, the has held that a father's decision to boycott his daughter's wedding and refuse to participate in necessary rituals causes considerable mental anguish to the mother, constituting a form of under .
A division bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi dismissed a husband's appeal challenging the Family Court's order dissolving his marriage on grounds of and . The court observed that the father's absence from the wedding function was not just a personal choice but an act that inflicted emotional distress on the wife.
A Marriage Beyond Repair
The couple had tied the knot on , according to Hindu rites and customs, and had two children. However, the marriage soured over the years. The parties had been living separately since , with no cohabitation since . In , the wife approached the , seeking , alleging and .
The wife testified that after the death of her husband's brother, he developed an illicit relationship with the brother's widow. The husband denied this, and the court declined to delve into the adultery allegations as the brother's widow was not made a party to the proceedings.
The Wedding That Wasn't: Father's Absence as
A key allegation that swayed the court was the husband's boycott of their daughter's wedding. The wife stated that when their daughter was given in marriage, the husband did not come forward to attend the necessary rituals. The bench noted that this act had a profound emotional impact on the mother.
"No doubt, the boycott of the marriage function by the father would definitely have caused considerable mental anguish to the mother. This would no doubt qualify as a form of ."
The court also took into account the prolonged separation. The husband, a headmaster in the , and the wife, an employee at , had been living apart for over two years when the divorce petition was filed.
What the Court Said
The bench observed that when there is no cohabitation for an extended period and the parties remain separate, this itself constitutes to both sides. The court noted:
"When there is no cohabitation since and the parties are remaining separate since , this itself in our view would constitute to both the parties."
The court also highlighted that the husband had not contributed towards maintenance or met the educational expenses of the children, with both children deposing against him.
The Verdict
The High Court declined to interfere with the Family Court's order, finding no merit in the husband's appeal. The bench dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, upholding the divorce granted to the wife. The court clarified that the prolonged breakdown of the marriage, coupled with the specific act of boycotting the daughter's wedding, justified the dissolution.
The ruling reinforces that can arise from , such as a parent's deliberate absence from significant family events, and that the cumulative effect of such behaviour can be sufficient grounds for divorce.
