The Delhi High Court upheld a family court order granting a divorce in Section 2 in favour of his wife. 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 found that the wife fully justified the reason for her husband’s psychological atrocities.

 The family court granted the wife’s respondents a divorce in accordance with HMA 13 (1) (ia) solely because of psychological atrocities.

 The split-bench, consisting of Deputy Judge Vipin Sanghi and Judge Jasmeet Singh, supported this and noted the following:

 “Husband and wife are the two pillars of the family. Together they can deal with any situation and balance the family in any situation. If the pillars weaken or break, the entire house will collapse. The pillars can withstand all the abuse together. As the pillars weaken or deteriorate, it becomes difficult to keep the house together. If one pillar gives up and puts all the burden on the other, you can’t expect to put the house together with just one pillar. “

 The marriage between the complaining husband and the defendant’s wife was completed on May 22, 1997. The couple lived together, got married and had two daughters. Immediately after the wedding, the couple’s relationship deteriorated. Respondents’ wives filed a petition for divorce because of the differences between the couples and the continued atrocities by their husbands. The family court granted the applicant’s petition for divorce to her husband by a ruling on appeal. The applicant subsequently claimed that the family court had mistakenly dismissed her husband’s defense and did not allow him to add his defense as evidence, relying on the recorded wife’s allegations inconsistent with the submission. He challenged the above judgment, saying that he admitted the divorce. The questions raised in Case

 were:

 Did the Family Court have the right to dismiss the applicant’s defense?

 Was the defendant/wife able to prove the accusation of atrocities in front of the family court with convincing evidence against the applicant/husband? The

 the court stated that the problem in the family court was not the approval of the document, but the delay in the applicant’s attempt to record the document.

 It was also found that her husband preferred to indulge in frivolous proceedings rather than paying unpaid dependents and did not comply with the various orders of this court, the Supreme Court, and the family court’s dependents.

 “The applicant has been ordered by this court to deposit the maintenance fee. Otherwise, the applicant will bear the result. The applicant will not pay the maintenance fee on time but in that court. I chose not to obey the order repeatedly. Therefore, we believe that the family court has the right to dismiss the applicant’s defense. The applicant was well aware of the consequences of his actions, “the court said.

The Delhi High Court

 upheld an own circle of relatives courtroom docket order

 granting a divorce in Section 2 in want of his spouse. 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 observed that the spouse absolutely justified the purpose for her husband`s mental atrocities.

 The own circle of relatives courtroom docket granted the spouse’s respondents a divorce according to HMA 13 (1) (ia) entirely due to mental atrocities.

 The breakup bench, including Deputy Judge Vipin Sanghi and Judge Jasmeet Singh, supported this and cited the following:

 “Husband and spouse are the 2 pillars of the own circle of relatives. Together they could cope with any scenario and stability their own circle of relatives in any scenario. If the pillars weaken or break, the complete residence will collapse. The pillars can resist all of the abuse collectively. As the pillars weaken or deteriorate, it will become hard to preserve the residence collectively. If one pillar offers up and places all of the burdens on the other, you cannot anticipate placing the residence collectively with simply one pillar. “

 The marriage between the complaining husband and the defendant’s spouse become finished on May 22, 1997. The couple lived collectively, were given married and had daughters. Immediately after the wedding, the couple’s courting deteriorated. Respondents’ other halves filed a petition for divorce due to the variations among the couples and the continuing atrocities with the aid of using their husbands. The own circle of relatives courtroom docket granted the applicant’s petition for divorce to her husband with the aid of using a ruling on appeal. The applicant in the end claimed that their own circle of relatives courtroom docket had mistakenly disregarded her husband’s protection and did now no longer permit him to feature his protection as proof, counting on the recorded spouse’s allegations inconsistent with the submission. He challenged the above judgment, announcing that he admitted the divorce. The questions raised in Case

 were:

 Did the Family Court have the proper to brush aside the applicant’s protection?

 Was the defendant/spouse capable of showing the accusation of atrocities in the front of the own circle of relatives courtroom docket with convincing proof in opposition to the applicant/husband? The

 courtroom docket said that the trouble withinside the own circle of relatives courtroom docket become now no longer

 the approval of the document, however

 the put off withinside the applicant’s try to report the document.

 It become additionally observed that her husband favoured taking pleasure in frivolous lawsuits in place of paying unpaid dependents and did now no longer follow the diverse orders of this courtroom docket, the Supreme Court, and the own circle of relatives courtroom docket’s dependents.

 “The applicant has been ordered with the aid of using this courtroom docket to deposit the upkeep rate. Otherwise, the applicant will endure the result. The applicant will now no longer pay the upkeep rate on time, however in that courtroom docket. I selected now no longer to obey the order repeatedly. Therefore, we trust that the own circle of relatives courtroom docket has the proper to brush aside the applicant’s protection. The applicant becomes properly aware of the results of his actions, “the courtroom docket said.