The Allahabad High Court recently observed that not all small disputes or occurrences can be held cruelty while considering a divorce plea.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad said, “If courts were to recognize and act on small disputes or occurrences and read them as completion of ingredients of cruelty, many marriages where parties may not be enjoying best relations may stand exposed to dissolution without any real cruelty being committed”.
The bench emphasised that cruelty is not defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) yet it has to be an act serious enough as may not allow a prudent person an opportunity or conviction to resolve matrimonial discord being faced by them or as may not burden them to continue to live in matrimony.
“Such acts, by very nature, must include things or occurrences of very serious nature having a deleterious effect on the relationship such as may be seen to prevent the parties to seek reconciliation,” the bench said.
The observations were made in an appeal filed by a husband against the dismissal of his divorce petition under section 13 of the Act by the Family Court.
The couple got married in 2013 and according to both the parties, the marriage was not consummated. As to the reason, both blamed the other. The couple lived together only till 2014.
For divorce, the grounds raised by the husband was cruelty. He claimed that the wife had refused to consummate the marriage, misbehaved with his parents and assaulted them once. Apart from that, it was also claimed by the husband that the wife had once instigated a mob to chase and assault him accusing him to be a thief.
The wife had also filed a criminal case against the husband alleging demand of dowry, etc.
During the course of the divorce proceedings, an additional act of cruelty was pleaded on the grounds that the wife had made a scandalous allegation against the husband of an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (bhabhi).
The high court noted that the facts alleged by the husband were not found to be not proven before the Family Court, but it did appear that there were serious disputes between the parties. It also highlighted that both parties claimed that the marriage was never consummated over a long period of ten years.
Moreover, it opined that to instigate a mob on a false allegation only for the purpose of causing embarrassment may never be accepted as normal conduct by the wife, however, it was also noteworthy that no formal arrest was made and no First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the husband and his family on such false allegation.
“Thus, it may not complete the ingredients of cruelty that are necessary to be established for the purposes of grant of decree of divorce,” the high court held.
Further, regarding the allegation of illicit relationship, the court found that the allegation was clearly not made as it could allow the allegation of cruelty to arise at the instance of the husband.
“To infer existence of illicit relationship, it is not to be left to the imagination of the Court what the parties may have intended to say by way of fact allegation. The allegation of one party having illicit relationship with another must be clear,” court stressed.
In view of the above, the court held that the allegation of cruelty was not made out.
However, the court held that in absence of any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights by either party, the court below ought to have granted a decree for judicial separation by way of alternative relief.
Accordingly, while pointing out that as many as 10 years had passed since the marriage was solemnized, the couple had not cohabited for more than 9 years, there was no child born to the marriage and there was no hope seen existing of any reconciliation at present, the court granted a decree of judicial separation to the husband.
Comments
0 comment