In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce on grounds of mental and physical cruelty, stating that “normal wear and tear of married life” cannot be construed as sufficient grounds for dissolving a marriage. The bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, affirmed the Family Court’s decision to deny the divorce petition.
Case Background
The case, First Appeal No. 55 of 2021, was initiated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant alleged that the marriage was entered into under duress and claimed a series of incidents amounting to mental and physical cruelty. The case originated from a petition dismissed by the Family Court, Faizabad, in 2020.
Representing the appellant were Mrs. Nisha Srivastava and her legal team, while Mr. Surya Prakash Singh argued on behalf of the respondent.
Husband’s Allegations
The appellant alleged that:
1. The marriage was coerced following the death of the respondent’s father in 2015.
2. The respondent imposed restrictions, forbidding him from visiting his family or colleagues.
3. She made baseless allegations about his relationships with colleagues and filed false police complaints, accusing him of going missing.
4. She captured and manipulated obscene photos and videos to extort and blackmail him with her brother’s assistance.
5. She resorted to physical violence, including assaulting him and threatening his safety.
6. Multiple false complaints were filed, including a police complaint under Sections 498A and 377 of the IPC, causing significant mental agony.
The appellant claimed these incidents left him emotionally and physically drained, resulting in severe hypertension and heart disease.
Respondent’s Defense
In her counterarguments, the respondent refuted all allegations and stated that:
1. The marriage was consensual and conducted as per her will.
2. The appellant had established physical relations with her before marriage under the promise of matrimony.
3. She was a victim of physical and mental abuse, as documented in a domestic violence case where the Family Court granted her compensation and monthly maintenance.
4. The appellant sought to mislead the court with unsubstantiated claims while continuing to harass her.
Court’s Observations
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties. It referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), which enumerates instances constituting “mental cruelty” in matrimonial disputes. However, the court concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate sustained and serious instances of cruelty beyond the ordinary challenges of married life.
Quoting from the judgment, the court noted:
“The allegations with regard to cruelty as set out by the appellant/husband are nothing but the normal wear and tear in married life. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer.”
The court also observed that the Family Court’s findings were well-reasoned, particularly in rejecting vague and general allegations. It noted that the appellant’s claims were unsupported by sufficient evidence, including a failure to report significant incidents such as physical assault to the police.
Dismissing the appeal, the bench stated:
“The pleadings of the appellant/husband are not so grave and weighty so as to dissolve the marriage. No case is made out to interfere with the well-reasoned findings of the Family Court.”
The court emphasized that while marital discord is unfortunate, not every disagreement or challenge in a marriage qualifies as cruelty warranting divorce. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed, with both parties bearing their own costs.
