In a nuanced interpretation of matrimonial disputes, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a wife’s alcohol consumption does not, in itself, constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, unless it is tied to behaviour causing harm to the marital relationship. The bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered this significant judgment on January 8, 2025, while allowing First Appeal No. 37 of 2021 filed by the appellant husband.
The Court addressed key legal issues concerning cruelty and desertion, ultimately dissolving the marriage on the grounds of desertion.
Background of the Case
The appellant husband and respondent wife were married on December 14, 2015, in Lucknow, according to Hindu rites. Initially harmonious, the marriage deteriorated due to alleged changes in the wife’s behaviour, including:
– Consumption of alcohol,
– Frequent outings with friends without informing the husband,
– Abusive conduct, and
– Pressure exerted by the wife and her family for the husband to relocate to Kolkata.
The wife eventually moved to Kolkata with their minor son on November 28, 2016, and refused to return despite the husband’s efforts at reconciliation. On July 3, 2020, the husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Lucknow, citing cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition was dismissed on February 12, 2021, prompting the current appeal.
Legal Issues Before the Court
1. Does alcohol consumption by the wife amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
– The Court examined whether the wife’s behaviour, including her alcohol consumption, could constitute mental or physical cruelty toward the husband.
2. What constitutes desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
– The Court analyzed whether the wife’s prolonged separation and refusal to return to the matrimonial home amounted to desertion under the law.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Cruelty as Grounds for Divorce
The Court clarified that cruelty encompasses both physical and mental harm and must be substantiated with clear evidence. It noted:
“Consuming alcohol in middle-class society may be a taboo, but it does not amount to cruelty unless accompanied by unwarranted or uncivilized behaviour.”
The appellant alleged that the wife’s alcohol consumption led to her neglect of marital duties. However, the Court found no evidence linking her alcohol use to any conduct that directly harmed the husband or their marital relationship. The judgment observed:
“Though consuming alcohol is not part of the cultural norm in many societies, there is no pleading or evidence on record to show how this caused cruelty to the appellant husband.”
The Court upheld the Family Court’s finding that the allegations were vague and unsubstantiated.
Desertion as Grounds for Divorce
On the issue of desertion, the Court took a more critical stance. It held that desertion involves the intentional, permanent forsaking of one spouse by the other without reasonable cause or consent, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002). The Court stated:
“Desertion is not merely physical separation but involves willful neglect of marital obligations. The respondent wife’s conduct, including her prolonged absence and refusal to reconcile, clearly demonstrates desertion.”
The Court highlighted that the wife had been living separately since November 2016 and failed to participate in the legal proceedings despite multiple notices. Her affidavit stating that she did not wish to contest the case further reinforced her lack of intent to resume marital life.
Key Legal Takeaways
– Cruelty: Allegations of cruelty must be specific, supported by evidence, and linked to adverse effects on the marital relationship. Mere alcohol consumption or individual habits do not constitute cruelty unless they lead to mental or physical harm.
– Desertion: Prolonged separation and refusal to cohabit without reasonable cause meet the legal threshold for desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b).
Decision
The High Court set aside the Family Court’s decision and granted the husband a decree of divorce. It observed:
“The long period of continuous separation establishes that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage has become a fiction, though supported by a legal tie.”
The Court further noted that the respondent wife’s conduct during the proceedings, including her refusal to appear or contest the case, demonstrated her disinterest in continuing the marriage.
