The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, comprising Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Ramkumar Choubey, dismissed an appeal seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court upheld the judgment of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, which had earlier rejected the divorce petition.
Case Background
The marriage was solemnised in May 2007 according to Hindu rites. Two sons were born out of the wedlock in 2009 and 2019. The appellant alleged that marital discord existed from the beginning.
It was claimed that the respondent refused to stay with in-laws, neglected family traditions, made complaints to the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, threatened suicide, and often stayed at her parental home for months. It was further alleged that the respondent denied cohabitation, threatened false dowry cases, and finally left the matrimonial home with the children in March 2024. A legal notice sent in May 2024 was replied to by the respondent, who expressed willingness to return but sought assurance of proper care and maintenance.
The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition in November 2024, holding that neither cruelty nor desertion was proved. Aggrieved, the appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Arguments Before the High Court
The appellant’s counsel pressed the case solely on the ground of cruelty, arguing that unrebutted testimony and documentary evidence established that the appellant was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. It was contended that the Family Court erred in not appreciating the unchallenged evidence.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined both grounds of divorce:
- Desertion: The Court noted that the respondent left the matrimonial home in March 2024, and the divorce petition was filed in July 2024. Since Section 13(1)(ib) requires desertion for at least two years, this ground was unavailable.
- Cruelty: The Bench reiterated that cruelty under the Act means conduct making it unreasonable for the petitioner to live with the spouse, citing Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 SC 1675.
The Court carefully reviewed the appellant’s deposition, including allegations about non-adjustment with in-laws, discarding traditional symbols like mangalsutra, and staying away during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it held these were “ordinary wear and tear of married life” and not cruelty of such gravity as to justify dissolution of marriage.
On the respondent’s reply notice, the Court observed that her request for assurance of care, maintenance, and fidelity was reasonable:
“Any wife can have an expectation from her husband that he must be caring towards the wife and their children and be honest towards the conjugal obligations.”
The Bench further held that occasional refusal of cohabitation could not amount to cruelty, noting that the couple had lived together for 17 years and had two children, indicating a well-cohabited marital life. Referring to Smt. Swapna Chakrawarti v. Dr. Viplay Chakrawarti, AIR 1999 MP 163, the Court emphasized that persistent refusal alone could constitute mental cruelty.
Citing Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534, the Court underlined that the burden to prove cruelty lies on the petitioner, regardless of whether the respondent contests the case. It also relied on Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur, 2010 AIR SCW 6160, holding that trivial irritations and quarrels cannot justify divorce on cruelty grounds.
Decision
The Division Bench concluded that cruelty was not established. The judgment stated:
“Whatever incidences about which the appellant has made statements before the Family Court are mere trivial irritations and quarrels between the spouses, which happen in day-to-day life, but that does not amount to cruelty.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Family Court’s order was affirmed.
