Wearing revealing dress ground for divorce: Court
New Delhi: 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 solemnization 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.