Synopsis: The Gauhati High Court while dismissing the review petition filed by the wife, stated that marriage was irrevocably broken with no harmony left between the wife and the husband.
Gauhati High Court dismissed a divorce decree’s review petition after it found the marriage was ‘irretrievably broken’ and the wife declined to wear sindoor and stopped considering the respondent as her husband.
The wife sought the review petition on the grounds that not wearing sindoor can not amount to cruelty and divorce could not be granted for the same although arguing that there were erroneous other grounds such as preventing the husband from discharging his duties to his parents.
The court referred to the statement of the wife under oath in which she confirmed that she did not wear sindoor because she does consider the respondents her husband. In the given case, when the wife states that she does not wear “sindoor” because she does not regard Bhaskar Das as her husband, the marriage was irrevocably dissolved, the court stated.
The court further stated that if the wife takes a plea on oath that she does not wear ‘sindoor’ because she does not consider the husband as her husband, it does not imply a surviving and happy marriage. The court further found such act as hurtful to the husband and mentioned that it could not force the husband to live with such a wife. The court justified its role in considering situations where the wife never wore sindoor, but it appeared in the current case that in the past the wife used to wear sindoor and stopped wearing it when she stopped considering the marriage as legitimate, and found the act as cruelty after considering both facts and statements.
The court further explained that the reason for divorce was not cruelty on the basis of not wearing sindoor alone, the court relied on other grounds such as cruelty on the basis of the wife’s false criminal proceedings and other facts and circumstances of the case showing that marriage was irrevocably broken with no harmony left between the wife and the husband. The court held that the cruelty with the husband justified the divorce and rejected the petition for review.