Read Time: 06 minutes
The act of of the respondent being free-willed or a person, who would travel on her own or meet up with other members of the civil society without forming any illegal or immoral relationship, may not be described as an act of cruelty committed, said the court
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a wife's decision not to wear 'parda' (veil) in public does not amount to cruelty that could justify the dissolution of a marriage. Court rejected a man's claim that his wife’s refusal to observe traditional customs and her free-spirited behavior constituted grounds for divorce.
The man sought dissolution of his 35-year marriage alleging cruelty and desertion. The couple, married in 1990, cohabited sporadically until 1996 before separating permanently. Despite being apart for over two decades, the wife refused to consent to a divorce, leading to prolonged litigation.
The man argued that his wife's behavior, including going out without wearing 'parda' and interacting independently in society, violated his expectations and caused mental cruelty. However, the court found no merit in these claims.
Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh emphasized that such actions cannot be deemed cruel, especially in a modern context where both parties are educated professionals—the husband an engineer and the wife a government teacher. Court noted that differing life perspectives and behaviors do not automatically meet the legal threshold for cruelty.
"Difference of perception towards life may give rise to different behaviours by individuals. Such difference of perception and behaviour may be described as cruel by the others by observing the behaviour of another. At the same time, such perceptions are neither absolute nor such as may themselves give rise to allegations of cruelty unless observed and proven facts are such as may be recognized in law to be acts of cruelty," said the division bench.
Additionally, allegations of verbal insults and wife's alleged immoral relationship with a third party were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. Court observed that vague and unsupported claims could not form the basis for dissolving a marriage. The man’s accusation regarding wife's supposed relationship with an individual referred to as 'Punjabi Baba' lacked any credible proof and was deemed legally untenable.
Court, however, recognized that the long separation of over 23 years and the wife’s refusal to reconcile constituted desertion. While addressing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the court ruled that such prolonged separation inflicted mutual emotional harm, making the continuation of the marriage unsustainable. The judges cited the Supreme Court’s guidelines, which recognize long-term separation and the absence of cohabitation as factors contributing to mental cruelty.
Court further clarified that no provisions for alimony were necessary since both parties were financially independent. Their sole child, now an adult, remained in the custody of the wife, and no additional financial claims were made.
Allowing the man's appeal, the high court set aside a 2004 court below's decision that had dismissed the man's divorce petition. The high court formally dissolved the marriage, marking an end to the decades-long legal battle.
Case Title: xxx vs. yyy (2024:AHC:193172-DB)
Please Login or Register
