Source:- indianexpress.com<\/p>\n
Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court\u2019s verdict granting divorce to a man on the grounds that his wife had denied him \u201cconjugal bliss\u201d for about two months after their marriage and had levelled unproved allegations of adultery. A bench of justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Yogesh Khanna dismissed an appeal filed by the woman, who had approached the high court against trial court\u2019s June last year order granting divorce, saying there was \u201cno infirmity\u201d in it.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe find no infirmity in the view taken by the judge, family courts, that the husband has been able to establish the grounds on which the marriage has been annulled,\u201d the bench said.<\/p>\n
The trial court had granted divorce to the man, who got married in February 2002, on grounds of desertion and cruelty.<\/p>\n
In its verdict, the bench noted that though the woman had levelled allegations of adultery against the man, she could not prove it by way of any evidence.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut suffice would it be for us to highlight that the wife admitted that there was initially no sex between the couple. She pleaded the reason being her husband was living in adultery with a girl and hence it was he who initially did not consummate the marriage,\u201d the high court observed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe version of the wife that her husband had an adulterous relationship has not been made good by her during her evidence. She could not name the girl. She did not depose to any fact wherefrom an adulterous relationship could be gathered,\u201d it noted.<\/p>\n
The man had moved trial court seeking divorce contending that his wife had initially \u201cresisted consummation of the marriage stating that she had a mental block towards sex\u201d and had later left the matrimonial house.<\/p>\n
He had said that repeated attempts were made to sort out the differences but it could not fructify.<\/p>\n
The woman had contested the plea and claimed that she was treated cruelly by the man and her in-laws due to which she was hospitalised for treatment.<\/p>\n
However, the high court noted that her version that she had to leave her matrimonial house in October 2002 due to the cruelty inflicted upon her by her in-laws was \u201ctotally belied\u201d from the documentary evidence.<\/p>\n