No legal right for husbands to beat or torture wives, says Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has unequivocally declared that no legal provision grants husbands the right to inflict physical or mental abuse upon their wives. The court also granted a divorce to a woman on grounds of cruelty and desertion by her husband.

The court's ruling highlighted that the man in question not only failed to restore companionship with his wife but also demonstrated an intent to keep her away from their matrimonial home.

The high court thoroughly examined the medical records of the woman, leading to its conclusion that her claims of physical assault were supported by concrete medical evidence. In the absence of any counterarguments from the man, the court determined that her allegations of abuse stood corroborated by the medical documents.

The court emphasised, "Merely because the parties got married and the respondent (man) was her husband, no law gave him the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture. Such conduct of the respondent necessarily qualifies as physical cruelty entitling the appellant (woman) to divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955."

During the verdict, the court noted that the husband, who was present at the hearing, did not object to the divorce being granted.

"We accordingly find merit in the appeal and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is hereby dissolved," stated the bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna.

The legal proceedings stemmed from an appeal filed by the woman, challenging the family court's decision to dismiss her petition for divorce based on cruelty and desertion.

According to the high court, the woman's testimony recounted her abandonment at her parental home in an injured state on May 11, 2013. Despite her efforts, her husband consistently refused to take her back to their matrimonial home. The husband failed to counter her argument that he provided no valid reason for not bringing her back.

The court concluded, "It is proved that the respondent had failed to resume the companionship with the appellant and thus not only there exist physical separation but it was also coupled with 'animus' of not bringing back the appellant to the matrimonial home. The respondent had no intention of resuming the matrimonial relationship which also got reflected when he chose not to contest the petition. The petition for divorce has been filed after more than two years of separation and therefore the appellant is also entitled to divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13 1 (ib) of the HMA."

In her plea, the woman detailed that she married the man in February 2013 and lived with his maternal aunt's family following the death of his parents. She alleged a series of physical and mental abuses, including demands for dowry and abandonment by her husband, who refused to take her back to their matrimonial home. The woman claimed that her husband and his family aimed to remove her so he could marry into a wealthier family.