The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the dissolution of a marriage between two advocates while directing the husband to pay ₹40 lakh as permanent alimony to his former wife and a separate one-time amount of ₹70 lakh towards the welfare and education of their minor daughter.
A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay dismissed the wife’s challenge to the Family Court’s April 2024 decision granting divorce to the husband. In its September 17 order, the High Court found no infirmity in the decree and rejected the wife’s plea that she wanted to continue living with her husband.
The Court observed that repeated humiliation of a spouse before professional colleagues and acquaintances could seriously affect the person’s dignity and mental well-being. It found that the evidence indicated a continuing course of conduct on the wife’s part, including instances in which the husband alleged that she had misbehaved with him in the presence of his friends, colleagues and seniors.
At the same time, the bench clarified that ordinary matrimonial disagreements, occasional loss of temper and routine differences between spouses do not by themselves constitute mental cruelty. It also said that merely asking a spouse to relocate or make professional adjustments cannot, on its own, be treated as cruelty.
Court Finds Continuing Course Of Conduct
The couple, both advocates, married in March 2014 and had a daughter in 2015. According to the case, they began living separately in 2016, and the daughter presently lives with the mother.
The husband instituted divorce proceedings in November 2016 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He alleged that his wife had behaved cruelly towards him from the time of her vidai and that the conduct continued while they lived together.
The Family Court eventually allowed his petition in April 2024 and dissolved the marriage. The wife then approached the High Court challenging that decision.
While considering the evidence, the High Court noted the husband’s allegations concerning his wife’s behaviour towards him in front of people from his professional and social circles. The bench observed that repeated humiliation in such circumstances was reasonably capable of causing mental pain, humiliation and insecurity to the husband.
Wife Disputed Cruelty And Desertion
Appearing for the wife, advocate Abhijay Negi argued that the allegations made by the husband reflected differences of opinion between the spouses rather than conduct amounting to cruelty or desertion.
The wife also disputed the claim that the husband’s career had suffered because of the matrimonial relationship. Her counsel pointed out that he was presently a partner in one of the leading firms.
Senior advocate Rajendra Dobhal, representing the husband, argued that the wife never genuinely intended to accept the husband’s home as her matrimonial home. According to his submissions, her conduct showed that she regarded the relationship as a mere formality or a paper marriage and did not accept the responsibilities and commitments associated with it.
The husband also alleged that his wife repeatedly pressured him to cut ties with his parents, leave his flourishing career as a corporate lawyer and move to a location preferred by her.
Every Matrimonial Disagreement Does Not Amount To Cruelty
The High Court drew a distinction between ordinary marital discord and conduct capable of constituting mental cruelty.
It noted that every disagreement between spouses, an occasional loss of temper or the ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life cannot automatically be treated as mental cruelty. Similarly, a spouse’s desire that the other relocate or make adjustments in their profession does not by itself cross the threshold of cruelty.
However, considering the evidence relating to the parties’ conduct, the bench found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s decision granting divorce to the husband.
₹1.10 Crore Directed Towards Wife And Daughter
While disposing of the appeal, the High Court separately considered financial provision for the wife and the couple’s minor daughter.
The Court noted that the wife was professionally qualified, had worked as a government advocate and was capable of maintaining herself. Taking those circumstances into account, it fixed permanent alimony at ₹40 lakh.
For the minor daughter, who is presently with the mother, the Court directed the husband to pay a one-time amount of ₹70 lakh towards her welfare and education.
With these directions, the High Court disposed of the wife’s appeal while leaving the Family Court’s divorce decree undisturbed.
