New Delhi, Sep 6 : The Delhi High Court has granted a divorce decree to a woman on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, holding that making false allegations against the "chastity" of a woman is an extreme form of cruelty. A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the couple has been living separately for the last 27 years. It emphasised that the term mental cruelty is broad enough to encompass financial instability, which can result in mental anxiety, particularly when a husband is unable to establish himself in any business or profession, becoming a constant source of mental cruelty to the wife. The bench stated that mental cruelty cannot be defined by a fixed set of parameters and must be evaluated based on the circumstances and situation of the spouses. In this case, the woman had been working while the husband was not, leading to a significant disparity in their financial statuses. The husband's attempts to sustain himself had failed, adding to the mental trauma endured by the wife. The woman had initially approached the family court seeking a divorce decree on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. She alleged that her husband had falsely accused her of having illicit relationships with her brother-in-law and others. The high court noted that the husband's response was vague and merely mentioned constant interference from her brother-in-law and other family members, which supported the woman's testimony. It said that there could be no greater cruelty than making false allegations against a woman's chastity. The bench further observed that continuing a dead relationship only brings pain and agony, and the court cannot be a party to perpetuating such mental cruelty. Given the separation of more than 27 years since December 1996, the court concluded that the appellant was entitled to a divorce on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The couple had married in 1989, had no children, and parted ways in 1996. The woman had been working for a multinational company before marriage, and it was represented to her that her husband was a Delhi University graduate with a good financial status. However, after marriage, she discovered that her husband was not a graduate, was not employed, and relied on financial support from his mother. The court found that the prolonged separation and lack of reconciliation attempts over the past 27 years indicated the parties' inability to sustain their matrimonial relationship, constituting mental cruelty. /IANS