On this context, the bench said: “ Merely because both exchanged some verbal conversation in presence of others would not be enough to constitute an act of cruelty unless it is further supported by some incidents of alike nature. It was not so.”
The husband, who had sought the divorce, was a ‘caretaker’ in the Delhi government. The court, setting aside the divorce granted to him, said: “ He must be the “Caretaker” of his own family that being his first obligation and at the same time attend to his Government duties to maintain his family.”
“We hope and trust that the parties would now realise their duties and obligations against each other as also would realise their joint obligations as mother and father towards their grown up daughters. Both should, therefore, give quite burial to their past deeds/acts and bitter experiences and start living together and see that their daughters are well settled in their respective lives. Such reunion, we feel, would be in the interest of all family members in the long run and will bring peace, harmony and happiness,” the court said while allowing the plea of the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Written and Published by http://www.livelaw.in/