TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Gauhati HC grants divorce to man after woman refuses to wear 'sindoor', 'shaka'

The man had appealed in the high court against the family court's order

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Guwahati, June 30

Advertisement

The Gauhati High Court has granted divorce to a man, observing that the refusal to wear ‘shaka’ (conch shell bangle) and ‘sindoor’ (vermillion) as per customs by a Hindu married woman amounted to her refusal to accept the marriage.

Advertisement

After hearing a matrimonial appeal filed by the husband, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ajai Lamba and Justice Soumitra Saikia set aside an order of the family court which rejected his prayer for divorce on the grounds that no cruelty was found on the part of the wife against him.

The man had appealed in the high court against the family court’s order.

“Her refusal to wear ‘sakha’ and ‘sindoor’ will project her to be unmarried and/or signify her refusal to accept the marriage with the appellant (husband). Such categorical stand of the respondent (wife) points to the clear intention of the respondent that she is unwilling to continue her conjugal life with the appellant,” the high court said in the judgment passed on June 19.

Advertisement

The man and the woman had married on February 17, 2012, but they started fighting soon as she started demanding not to live along with his family members. As a consequence, the two have been living separately since June 30, 2013.

She had lodged a police complaint against her husband and his family accusing them of torturing her, but the allegation of subjecting her to cruelty was not sustained, the bench said.

“Such acts of lodging criminal cases on unsubstantiated allegations against the husband and/or the husband’s family amount to cruelty as held by the Supreme Court,” they said in the order.

The family court completely ignored the fact that the woman prevented her husband from performing his statutory duties towards his aged mother under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the judges said.

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

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement