An individual’s decision not to observe traditional or orthodox religious customs does not amount to matrimonial cruelty or provide legal grounds to dissolve a marriage, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held.
A division bench comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice Sunitha Gandham affirmed that exercising personal freedom and holding independent beliefs regarding rituals are ordinary aspects of individual choice that do not cross the threshold of mental or physical cruelty required under the law.
With the August 20 ruling, the high court dismissed an appeal filed by an elderly man challenging a 2006 family court order that had turned down his petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Legal Threshold for Cruelty
In its assessment, the bench observed that legal cruelty necessitates behavior severe enough that a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to endure the matrimonial relationship.
The judges pointed out that abstaining from a ritual is not a deliberate attempt to torture or harm a partner. While a court may scrutinize an individual’s conduct if a refusal escalates into public humiliation, ongoing insults, or deliberate hostility directed at the family, the judges found no record of such conduct in this instance.
The court further highlighted that the petitioner’s statements were self-serving, lacked credibility, and appeared detached from reality.
Allegations and Background of the Dispute
The case originated from a marriage solemnized in 1999 according to Hindu rites. Shortly after the wedding, the husband approached a family court seeking the dissolution of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.
In his petition, the husband alleged that his wife failed to adhere to his household’s orthodox customs, specifically citing an instance where she did not wear a wet saree to perform the traditional ritual of “madi.” He also accused her of neglecting his aged mother, exhibiting rude and quarrelsome behavior, and repeatedly vacating the matrimonial home before moving out permanently in 2000.
The high court concluded that the wife’s alleged refusal to participate in the “madi” ritual could not, on its own, be construed as an act of cruelty.
Protracted Separation and Precedent
Contesting the husband’s petition, the wife stated that she was raised in an orthodox family, understood their traditional practices, and had followed them. She asserted that the domestic conflict was generated by her husband’s brother and sister-in-law rather than her own actions.
The high court noted that the estranged spouses, now aged 76 and 66, have resided separately since 2000.
Referencing Supreme Court precedent, the bench reiterated that marital life must be evaluated in its entirety, noting that a handful of isolated occurrences over a span of years cannot be classified as cruelty. Concluding that the allegations lacked merit, the high court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the divorce petition.
