Wearing revealing dress is cruel and ground for divorce: Delhi courtFeb 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.