Live
- BJP releases ‘charge sheet’ against BJD govt
- District Nodal Officer Venkataramana announced the intermediate results
- She team that stopped child marriages
- Medical devices sector needs separate rules, says industry body AiMeD
- Andhra Paper declares lockout
- Opposition INDIA bloc working on 'one year, one PM' formula: PM Modi
- Delhi HC quashes FIR for outraging woman's modesty, orders man to assist Traffic Police for a month as settlement
- 'Apologise to families of farmers who committed suicide in Vidarbha', Amit Shah dares Sharad Pawar
- SC Collegium recommends appointment of a permanent judge in Chhattisgarh HC, extension of term of two judges
- U20 Men's football nationals: Telangana, Sikkim earn full points with easy win
Refusing 'Shankha-Sindoor' shows disregard for marriage: HC
The Gauhati High Court has granted divorce to a man whose wife refused to abide by Hindu culture prevalent in eastern part of the country, that of smearing vermilion on her head and wearing conch shell bangle
Guwahati : The Gauhati High Court has granted divorce to a man whose wife refused to abide by Hindu culture prevalent in eastern part of the country, that of smearing vermilion on her head and wearing conch shell bangle.
In an observation of a kind, the top court in Assam said that the reluctance to wear 'shankha' (conch shell bangle) and 'sindoor' (vermillion) as have been the tradition and custom among the Hindu married woman, the petitioner wife's action amounted to a kind of rejection to accept the marriage.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ajai Lamba and Justice Soumitra Saikia observed "under the custom of Hindu marriage, a lady who has entered into marriage according to Hindu rituals and customs, and which has not been denied by the respondent (woman) in her evidence, her refusal to wear shankha and sindoor' would project her to be unmarried and/or signify her refusal to accept the marriage with the appellant (man).
"Such categorical stand of the respondent points to the clear intention of the respondent that she is unwilling to continue her conjugal life with the appellant.
"Under such circumstances compelling the appellant husband to continue to be in matrimony with the respondent wife may be construed to be harassment inflicted by the respondent upon the appellant and his family members.
The High Court said: "Attempts to reconcile between the man (husband) and woman (wife) by this Court also did not yield any positive response and considering the fact that the appellant and the respondent have remained separately since June 30, 2013, it is evident that there will be no purpose served to keep the marriage alive as there was no matrimonial harmony between the parties to be reached."
The couple had married on February 17, 2012, but soon they started quarrelling and the woman has been refusing to live with the man along with his family members causing their separate staying since June 30, 2013.
