<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidXGtoqR6kSodv" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>A Delhi court has granted 37-year-old Indian cricket Shikhar Dhawan&nbsp;a divorce from his estranged wife, Aesha Mukherji, on the grounds of mental cruelty.&nbsp;The couple married in 2012 and have a ten-year-old son, Zoravar Dhawan. Aesha is an Australian citizen and resides there with&nbsp;Zoravar.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Shikhar Dhawan's divorce petition sheds light on the Indian laws regarding&nbsp;mental cruelty in marriage.</p>

<h2>Delhi court on Shikhar's Dhawan's divorce petition</h2>

<p><span style="font-size: 15px;">In Dhawan's case, the Delhi court stated that his wife subjected him to mental agony by forcing him to live separately from his only son for several years. In the order, Judge Harish Kumar noted, "Even though the wife denied the allegation, submitting that she genuinely wanted to live in India with him, but could not due to her commitment towards her daughters from her previous marriage requiring her to stay in Australia, she could not come to live in India and that he was well aware of her commitment, yet she did not choose to contest the claim."</span></p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/hindu-marriage-not-valid-without-saat-pheras-allahabad-high-court-642856">Hindu marriage not valid without 'saat pheras': Allahabad High Court</a></p>

<p>The judge also stated that Aesha, a Melbourne-based kick-boxer who was born in India,&nbsp;made Shikhar suffer a long-distance marriage. Although the court has not passed an order of permanent custody of Zoravar, it has granted mandatory visitation rights to Dhawan to meet his son in India and Australia. Furthermore, it ordered Aesha to bring Zoravar to India for visitation purposes, including overnight stays with Dhawan and his family and during the school holidays.</p>

<h2>Indian laws on mental cruelty in marriage</h2>

<p>The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which handles marriages between Hindus, and the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the law about marriages regardless of religion, contain a cruelty clause. Both acts consider cruelty in a marriage as a valid ground for divorce. However, they do not state what classifies as cruelty.</p>

<p>The courts in India define cruelty as "the total of reprehensible conduct or departure from normal standards of conjugal kindness that causes injury to health or an apprehension of it."</p>

<p>As per Indian law, there are two types of cruelty: physical and mental. While physical cruelty is definite and has no ambiguity, the courts in India have not been able to put down exactly what mental cruelty is. However, they have broadly based it on severe frustration, making it impossible for the spouse to continue matrimonial relationships.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Courts in India have made multiple judgments in divorce cases based on mental cruelty despite its uncertain definition. Refusing intercourse without sufficient reason for a long time, making false allegations about a woman's chastity, forcing the husband to separate from dependent parents, and not feeding the husband and children are a few examples of mental cruelty from past divorce cases in India.</p>

<p>Although the definition of mental cruelty is unclear, it certainly applies to both genders equally. Married couples can experience cruelty from either partner, causing the relationship to deteriorate.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


A Delhi court has granted 37-year-old Indian cricket Shikhar Dhawan a divorce from his estranged wife, Aesha Mukherji, on the grounds of mental cruelty. The couple married in 2012 and have a ten-year-old son, Zoravar Dhawan.

A Delhi court has granted 37-year-old Indian cricket Shikhar Dhawan a divorce from his estranged wife, Aesha Mukherji, on the grounds of mental cruelty. The couple married in 2012 and have a ten-year-old son, Zoravar Dhawan. Aesha is an Australian citizen and resides there with Zoravar. Shikhar Dhawan's divorce petition sheds light on the Indian laws regarding mental cruelty in marriage. Delhi court on Shikhar's Dhawan's divorce petition In Dhawan's case, the Delhi court stated that his wife subjected him to mental agony by forcing him to live separately from his only son for several years. In the order, Judge Harish Kumar noted, "Even though the wife denied the allegation, submitting that she genuinely wanted to live in India with him, but could not due to her commitment towards her daughters from her previous marriage requiring her to stay in Australia, she could not come to live in India and that he was well aware of her commitment, yet she did not choose to contest the claim." ALSO READ | Hindu marriage not valid without 'saat pheras': Allahabad High Court The judge also stated that Aesha, a Melbourne-based kick-boxer who was born in India, made Shikhar suffer a long-distance marriage. Although the court has not passed an order of permanent custody of Zoravar, it has granted mandatory visitation rights to Dhawan to meet his son in India and Australia. Furthermore, it ordered Aesha to bring Zoravar to India for visitation purposes, including overnight stays with Dhawan and his family and during the school holidays. Indian laws on mental cruelty in marriage The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which handles marriages between Hindus, and the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the law about marriages regardless of religion, contain a cruelty clause. Both acts consider cruelty in a marriage as a valid ground for divorce. However, they do not state what classifies as cruelty. The courts in India define cruelty as "the total of reprehensible conduct or departure from normal standards of conjugal kindness that causes injury to health or an apprehension of it." As per Indian law, there are two types of cruelty: physical and mental. While physical cruelty is definite and has no ambiguity, the courts in India have not been able to put down exactly what mental cruelty is. However, they have broadly based it on severe frustration, making it impossible for the spouse to continue matrimonial relationships. Courts in India have made multiple judgments in divorce cases based on mental cruelty despite its uncertain definition. Refusing intercourse without sufficient reason for a long time, making false allegations about a woman's chastity, forcing the husband to separate from dependent parents, and not feeding the husband and children are a few examples of mental cruelty from past divorce cases in India. Although the definition of mental cruelty is unclear, it certainly applies to both genders equally. Married couples can experience cruelty from either partner, causing the relationship to deteriorate. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Shikhar Dhawan's divorce sheds light on Indian laws regarding mental cruelty in marriage

<p>In a divorce case, India's Allahabad High Court observed that if a spouse denies having sexual intercourse with their partner for a long period without any valid reason, then the act amounts to mental cruelty.<br />
<br />
The court observed that the appellant Ravindra Pratap Yadav had alleged his wife Asha Devi "had no respect for marital bond, denied to discharge obligation of marital liability", which resulted in a "complete breakdown" of their marriage.<br />
<br />
Yadav had filed a petition challenging the Varanasi family court's 2005 order which had dismissed his divorce plea, citing Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.<br />
<br />
The High Court had stated that a "hyper-technical approach" was adopted by the lower court and dismissed Yadav's case.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-most-divorces-arising-from-love-marriages-only-says-supreme-court-593337">India: Most divorces arising from love marriages only, says Supreme Court</a></p>

<h2><strong>Couple granted divorce by Panchayat</strong></h2>

<p>The divorce case was filed by Ravindra Pratap Yadav on the ground that a mutually agreed divorce had already been finalised in the community Panchayat.<br />
<br />
He had further alleged mental cruelty, "denying to co-habit and discharge the obligation of marital life" and added that the married couple was living separately for a good amount of time.<br />
<br />
As per Yadav, the couple had married in May 1979 and the behaviour of his wife changed after some time and she was unwilling to cohabit with him.<br />
<br />
Later, his wife started living at her parents' house. However, after six months of marriage, Yadav claimed that he made efforts to convince his wife and bring her back, however, she refused.<br />
<br />
In July 1994, the village held a panchayat where the parties reached an agreement and mutually got divorced. The petitioner added that he was paying alimony of Rs 22,000 ($266) to his wife.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Gravitas Plus: India has the lowest divorce rate in the world. Here's why</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-plus-india-has-the-lowest-divorce-rate-in-the-world-heres-why-592407/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>However, when Yadav demanded a decree of divorce based on mental cruelty, divorce agreement and desertion, his wife did not turn up in court.<br />
<br />
“Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse...Since there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is given by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage than that has ceased to in fact," stated Bench of Justices Suneet Kumar and Rajendra Kumar-IV said.<br />
<br />
The bench referred to a 2006 Supreme Court judgment on the aspect of mental cruelty and found faults in the family court's order.<br />
<br />
"It is evident from the record that since long, the parties to the marriage have been living separately, according to plaintiff-appellant, defendant-respondent had no respect for marital bond, denied discharging obligation of marital liability. There has been a complete breakdown of their marriage,” the bench added.</p>

<main>
<section>
<p>You can&nbsp;<strong>now write for&nbsp;wionews.com</strong>&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>
</section>
</main>


In a divorce case, India's Allahabad High Court observed that if a spouse denies having sexual intercourse with their partner for a long period without any valid reason, then the act amounts to mental cruelty.

In a divorce case, India's Allahabad High Court observed that if a spouse denies having sexual intercourse with their partner for a long period without any valid reason, then the act amounts to mental cruelty. The court observed that the appellant Ravindra Pratap Yadav had alleged his wife Asha Devi "had no respect for marital bond, denied to discharge obligation of marital liability", which resulted in a "complete breakdown" of their marriage. Yadav had filed a petition challenging the Varanasi family court's 2005 order which had dismissed his divorce plea, citing Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court had stated that a "hyper-technical approach" was adopted by the lower court and dismissed Yadav's case. ALSO READ | India: Most divorces arising from love marriages only, says Supreme Court Couple granted divorce by Panchayat The divorce case was filed by Ravindra Pratap Yadav on the ground that a mutually agreed divorce had already been finalised in the community Panchayat. He had further alleged mental cruelty, "denying to co-habit and discharge the obligation of marital life" and added that the married couple was living separately for a good amount of time. As per Yadav, the couple had married in May 1979 and the behaviour of his wife changed after some time and she was unwilling to cohabit with him. Later, his wife started living at her parents' house. However, after six months of marriage, Yadav claimed that he made efforts to convince his wife and bring her back, however, she refused. In July 1994, the village held a panchayat where the parties reached an agreement and mutually got divorced. The petitioner added that he was paying alimony of Rs 22,000 ($266) to his wife. WATCH | Gravitas Plus: India has the lowest divorce rate in the world. Here's why However, when Yadav demanded a decree of divorce based on mental cruelty, divorce agreement and desertion, his wife did not turn up in court. “Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse...Since there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is given by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage than that has ceased to in fact," stated Bench of Justices Suneet Kumar and Rajendra Kumar-IV said. The bench referred to a 2006 Supreme Court judgment on the aspect of mental cruelty and found faults in the family court's order. "It is evident from the record that since long, the parties to the marriage have been living separately, according to plaintiff-appellant, defendant-respondent had no respect for marital bond, denied discharging obligation of marital liability. There has been a complete breakdown of their marriage,” the bench added. You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Indian court labels denial of sex to spouse for long time as 'mental cruelty'

The Madras High Court has observed that removal of Mangalsutra by wife is mental cruelty of the highest order. Would you agree? Is Mangalsutra even mandatory? Listen in to Palki Sharma.

Gravitas: Madras High Court: Removing Mangalsutra is mental cruelty

mental-cruelty

Mental Cruelty, News on Mental Cruelty, stories on Mental Cruelty, articles on Mental Cruelty, Mental Cruelty stories at Wion, Mental Cruelty news, Mental Cruelty latest news