In a landmark judgment, the Telangana High Court has ruled that depriving a spouse of access to social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram could potentially amount to cruelty, grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini made this observation while allowing a husband’s appeal seeking divorce in the case of CMA 68 of 2022.
Background of the Case
The case involved a couple who married in December 2010. Their marital discord began almost immediately, with the wife leaving the matrimonial home in November 2011. Over the years, the wife filed five criminal cases against her husband, including allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The husband was acquitted in some of these cases.
The husband filed for divorce citing cruelty and desertion. However, the trial court dismissed his petition in November 2021, stating that he failed to establish a case of cruelty. Challenging this order, the husband appealed to the High Court.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
1. Definition of Cruelty: The court emphasized that the concept of cruelty is not static and evolves with societal changes. It stated, “Any act of damage to reputation, social standing or work prospects by one spouse to the other would fall within the term ‘cruelty'”. The court went further to suggest that “depriving a spouse from being on Facebook and Instagram may also amount to cruelty” .
2. Mental Cruelty through Legal Proceedings: The court recognized that repeated filing of false cases can be a form of mental cruelty. In this case, the wife’s actions of filing multiple criminal cases, some of which resulted in the husband’s acquittal, were considered as contributing to mental cruelty .
3. Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The court held that the marriage had broken down beyond repair. Justice Bhattacharya observed, “Cruelty is just one of the splinters of a collapsing structure where the substratum of the marriage has broken down in a way in which the structure cannot be preserved or re-built” .
4. Court’s Role in Marital Disputes: The bench emphasized that courts should not force parties to continue in a loveless marriage. “The Court has a limited role in the whole affair and should not act as an executioner (in the sense of a hangman) or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband, particularly where the meeting of minds between them has irrevocably ended”, the court stated .
Also Read
Court’s Decision
Based on these considerations, the High Court allowed the husband’s appeal and granted the divorce. The court set aside the trial court’s order, concluding that the appellant was entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and the marriage having broken down beyond repair.
The case was argued by advocate G. Nagesh for the appellant (husband) and N. Lalitha Reddy for the respondent (wife).
