Wife's habit of chewing Tobacco not a ground for Divorce, DB of HC

  

The Bombay High Court Bench comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala in the case titled Shri Shankar Gajbhiye v. Sau. Rina gives their views on whether the wife’s habit of chewing tobacco can be a ground for divorce.

Facts of the Case:

The Appellant has filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty alleging that the Respondent (Wife) was addicted to chewing tobacco and therefore she had developed a cyst in her stomach. The appellant further submitted that he had to incur huge medical expenses for her treatment. The Appellant also states that in order to resume the cohabitation, the appellant issued a legal notice to the respondent. However, she neither replied to the said notice, nor showed her inclination to resume cohabitation, and hence he was constrained to file a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty. The Trial Court dismissed the petition for divorce on the ground that the appellant could not prove the cruelty at the hands of the respondent as contemplated in law.

Submission of the Respondent:

The Respondent has submitted that in the year 2008, even though the appellant was suffering from the disease H.I.V., she did not leave his company. However, as she was receiving continuous ill-treatment at the hands of her in-laws, she was constrained to leave the company of the appellant.

Court’s Observation and Judgement:

The High Court held:

"The evidence in support as adduced by the appellant, would at once reveal that the allegations with regard to cruelty as set out by the appellant, are nothing but the normal wear and tear in married life. The couple lived together for around 9 years and the appellant could not bring on record specific instances of mental harassment to enable this Court to adjudicate the case of mental cruelty in favour of the appellant. The major allegation amongst them is with regard to her habit of chewing tobacco/kharra, which alone is not sufficient to grant a decree of divorce. On the contrary, the appellant has admitted that in the year 2008, he was detected with HIV positive, and the respondent stayed with the appellant till 2010. The instances of physical and mental harassment, as pleaded and proved by the respondent, is on a better footing than the appellant."

The Court opined that it was rightly held by the Trial Court that the pleadings of the appellant weren't so grave and weighty so as to dissolve the marriage an thus dismissed the appeal accordingly.

Read Judgement Here:

 

 

source ; www.latestlaws.com

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure