Wearing revealing dress is cruel and ground for divorce: Delhi court
Feb 11, 2011, 21:16 IST
Wearing a revealing dress during her honeymoon proved costly for a
woman as a court granted divorce to her husband saying improper dressing
by the woman brought mental cruelty to the man.
"Cruelty includes not only physical but mental cruelty as well.
Ostensibly, she (wife) has indulged in bloating falsehood beyond
proportions," additional district judge Manmohan Sharma ruled, accepting
the husband's plea that he suffered mental agony due to his wife
wearing 'vulgar' dresses regularly since their honeymoon.
The
court allowed the husband's divorce plea saying "mere living under one
roof without the necessary ingredients of love and faith, which are the
hallmark of a fruitful matrimonial relationship, is nothing but animal
existence."
The husband, in his petition seeking divorece on the
ground of having been subjected to cruelty, had contended that his wife
wore vulgar clothes during their honeymoon.
"During their
honeymoon, she dressed herself in a very vulgar manner and when he asked
her to change the dress she retorted that she had dressed herself that
way to be noticed by at least 50 people," the husband had said in his
plea.
The court gave divorce decree to the husband after hearing
some audio recordings, played by the woman's father-in-law, proving that
she had conspired with her parents to torture her husband and in-laws.
"She
(wife) has gone to the extent of conspiring with her parents to teach
the petitioner (husband) and his family a lesson," the court held in its
ruling.
"The nature of cruelty suffered by the petitioner
(husband) is partly physical and predominantly mental. So, it is held
that he has been treated with cruelty by respondent (wife) after
solemnisation of their marriage," the court said.
The couple had married in August 2007.
The
court allowed the man's divorce plea rejecting the woman's contentions
that her husband and in-laws had levelled frivolous and baseless
allegations against her as her parnets failed to meet their demand for
dowry.
"The respondent (wife) crossed another milestone by making
reckless allegations of demand of dowry and illicit relationship against
her husband, which she could not prove," the court said.
