The Allahabad High Court recently delivered its judgment in First Appeal No. 702 of 2008, where the appellant, a police official, sought a divorce from his wife on the grounds of cruelty under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant alleged that his wife refused to care for his aged parents while he lived separately due to his job.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around whether the wife’s refusal to care for her in-laws in the absence of her husband, who was living separately due to his employment, could be considered cruelty as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant argued that this refusal constituted mental cruelty, justifying the dissolution of their marriage.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh meticulously analyzed the appellant’s claims. The court observed that the allegation of cruelty was based on the subjective expectations of the appellant, which were not substantiated by objective facts. The appellant did not establish any inhuman or cruel behavior by the wife that would justify the dissolution of the marriage.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s observations in N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane, the court emphasized that “the inquiry has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.” The court also referred to other precedents, emphasizing that cruelty must be assessed based on its impact on the aggrieved spouse and not on what might be considered cruel by a reasonable person in general.
In this particular case, the court noted that the appellant had chosen to live away from the matrimonial home due to his professional commitments, while expecting his wife to stay with his parents. The court held that the wife’s refusal to care for her in-laws under these circumstances could not be construed as cruelty. The court remarked, “What exact situation may prevail in each household is not for the Court to examine in detail or to lay down any law or principle in that regard.”
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Family Court, Moradabad, which had earlier rejected the appellant’s plea for divorce.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Number: First Appeal No. 702 of 2008
– Bench: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh
– Counsel for Appellant: Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, Sri Deep Chandra Joshi
– Counsel for Respondent: Sri D.K. Srivastava, Sri Deepak K. Srivastava
