Delhi HC grants divorce to couple, says man viewed wife as ‘cash cow’

The Delhi High Court has granted a couple divorce due to the husband’s mental cruelty, stating that he considered his wife as a ‘cash cow’ and only became interested in her once she secured a job with the Delhi Police.

According to a bench led by Justice Vipin Sanghi, the husband’s materialistic mentality without any emotional attachments would have caused mental pain and suffering to the wife, which is sufficient to constitute cruelty to her. The bench, which also included Justice Jasmeet Singh, noted that while every married woman wishes to start a family, the husband, in this case, looked to be ‘not interested in nurturing the marriage but only interested in the wife’s income.’

The court overturned a family court ruling that denied the wife’s divorce request and terminated the couple’s marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

She filed for divorce since her spouse was jobless, drunk and used to physically attack her and demand money. Both parties, in this case, were from a low-income family and the marriage was solemnised when the husband and wife were 19 and 13 years old, respectively.

Also Read: India’s first woman Air Marshal Dr Padma Bandopadhyay conferred with Padma Shri

Even after attaining the age of majority in 2005, the wife was not brought to the matrimonial home until November 2014, when she secured a job with the Delhi Police.

The husband objected to the divorce on the grounds that he had paid for the woman’s schooling, which helped her get a job. The court stated that since the wife lived with her parents till 2014, it was ‘obvious that all her expenses for living and upbringing would have been borne by her parents’ and there was no evidence to the contrary.

‘From our interaction with the respondent, it has become absolutely clear to us that the interest of the respondent in continuing with the relationship is only on account of the fact that the appellant has a job with Delhi Police and he views the alleged expenditure – which he claimed he has incurred on the education of the appellant (and which is disputed by the appellant), as an investment, which would not bear fruit in case parties were to part ways with judicial intervention,’ the court said.