Refusal to wear Sindoor signifies a refusal to accept Marriage

1. This matrimonial appeal arises out of petitioner being aggrieved by the decision made by the District Judge, Dibrugarh dismissing the suit for divorce preferred by the appellant husband.
2. The appellant is a contractual laborer in Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited, living with his mother, sister and brother in Digboi.
3. He was married to the respondent on 17^th of February 2012 and both lived in the matrimonial house of appellant. After a month into their marriage, the respondent wife demanded to reside separately with the appellant husband away from the husband’s relatives in a separate house.
4. As the appellant is a contractual laborer he was not able to sustain separate accommodation for him and his wife and him being unable to accede to the demands made by the respondent wife for separate accommodation led to frequent quarrels between the respondent wife and the appellant husband.
5. Respondent wife continued to resort to frequent quarrels with the appellant and started blaming him for the couple not being able to have a child after marriage even after appellant husband attempted to take the respondent wife to his place of work at Madhuban.
6. As the appellant’s period of contract in connection with his work was about to expire, he brought back the respondent wife to the matrimonial house. However, the respondent wife continued to be indifferent and negligent towards the appellant husband as well as the other family members.
7. In June, 2013, the respondent wife declared that she was not willing to continue her matrimonial life with the appellant and will abstain from wearing ‘sakha and sindoor’.
8. The respondent wife said the appellant and his family members that she wanted to visit her parental house for a few days but didn’t return back to the matrimonial home thereafter.
9. Instead of returning back to the matrimonial house, defendant wife filed a case under Section 498(A) IPC before Digboi Police Station against the appellant and his family members.
10. The appellant husband and his family members were compelled to apply for pre-arrest bail, the appellant husband further contended that the respondent wife compelled the appellant to execute a written agreement to the effect that the couple will stay in a separate rental house together away from the rest of the family members.
11. The respondent wife contended that she was not provided with food and other medical treatment and that it was her brother who used to take care of the bare necessities of her life and that she was subjected to cruelty to meet illegal demands of dowry in the form of cash and kind by the appellant husband, his step-mother, sister-in-law, brother and sisters from the very threshold of their marriage.
12. The lower court dismissed the suit and rejected the prayer of the husband for decree of divorce

1. Whether respondent (the wife) subjected the petitioner (the respondent) to cruelty and deserted him?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce?

JUDGMENT