Private Marital Dynamics Beyond Court’s Reach: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Divorce on Grounds of ‘Cruelty’

Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Court held that a spouse’s personal preferences and choices generally fall outside judicial purview, barring cases of "clear extreme cruelty or depravity"

The Allahabad High Court recently underscored that the judiciary should avoid interfering in the private dynamics between married partners, particularly regarding intimate moments and personal conduct.

Court said that preferences, habits, and choices that one spouse may wish to practice or share with their partner are generally beyond the court’s purview, except in cases involving “ex facie extreme cruelty and/or depravity.

Court made the observation as it set aside a divorce decree granted on grounds of “cruelty.” It observed that the original decision lacked sufficient grounds to justify the dissolution of the marriage based on cruelty.

The case revolved around a marriage that lasted only a few months, with the couple, married in 1999, living together for a mere 8-9 months before separation. In 2013, the respondent-husband pursued divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing disagreements and behavior that he found objectionable. The family court initially upheld the plea, agreeing that the appellant-wife’s conduct warranted divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955.

However, the High Court found significant procedural and substantive flaws in this judgment. It noted that, under Section 14(1) of the HMA, no divorce petition can be presented within one year of marriage unless the petitioner establishes that the case involves extreme hardship or exceptional depravity. Court emphasized that this provision aims to safeguard marital stability during the initial phase of marriage. Since the divorce petition was filed prematurely and lacked this necessary legal foundation, the High Court deemed the case ineligible for dissolution at that time.

The High Court also addressed the critical matter of “cruelty” as grounds for divorce. The family court’s decision to grant divorce had relied heavily on the appellant-wife’s resistance to legal proceedings rather than on actual evidence of marital cruelty. According to the High Court, the appellant-wife’s contesting of the divorce could not be construed as cruelty, as her actions were within her legal rights to defend her marriage.

Further, court expressed that within the confines of that relationship that too involving intimate moments is not for the court to explore or examine unless they involve acts of ex facie extreme cruelty and/ or depravity.

It said that minor incompatibilities or differences in intimate conduct fall within the purview of the couple’s personal life and do not warrant judicial scrutiny.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh emphasized that personal conduct within marriage is a private matter and that the court’s intervention should only be triggered by extreme instances that infringe on legal or human rights.

The bench thus set aside the family court’s order, citing an absence of compelling evidence for cruelty and procedural irregularities in the initial divorce ruling. Additionally, the High Court ordered the husband to bear the legal costs of Rs 50,000 and allowed the wife access to the remaining funds he had deposited with the family court for maintenance.

Case Title: xxx   vs.   yyy