Wife’s academic/career priorities cannot be deemed cruelty: Madras High Court

The bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and R. Sakthivel made this observation while deciding a husband’s appeal challenging the family court’s rejection of his divorce petition.

The husband had sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming that his wife’s conduct—especially her decision to study in the United States without his consent—amounted to mental cruelty.

The couple married in July 2014 and lived briefly together in Hyderabad and Puducherry. Disputes arose within a year, and the wife eventually moved to the USA in 2016 for higher studies. The husband alleged that she did not inform him of her plans and deliberately abandoned the marriage. He also accused her of verbal abuse, showing indifference, and refusing to relocate to Canada where he later took up employment.

The wife, however, contested the allegations, claiming that she had informed the husband and his family about her plans and that her decision to study abroad was a career move, not a marital abandonment. She insisted that she remained open to reconciliation, provided she was assured of a respectful and safe marital environment.

The Family Court had, in 2020, dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, holding that the evidence did not support his claims of cruelty. The court also observed that minor marital quarrels were common and did not amount to cruelty under the law.

Challenging this decision, the husband filed a civil miscellaneous appeal before the high court, arguing that the trial court had overlooked crucial facts, including his wife's refusal to join him in Canada and her continued absence from the marital relationship.

On the issue of physical altercation, the high court noted that the scuffle between the couple was a minor one in the first year of the marriage which both parties condoned, therefore, it could only be considered as normal wear and tear in a marriage. "Such minor scuffles, though not desirable and appropriate, does not amount to cruelty," the court said.

Further, on the point of desertion, the high court noted that the wife had only gone to the USA for her higher studies and, undesputedly, she had conveyed the same to the husband in August 2016 via Skype and that his family members were also duly informed by her parents.

"Even while assuming that she failed to inform the petitioner and his family, that alone cannot be termed as cruelty, considering the facts and circumstances of this case," court held.

It highlighted that the husband was not ready to sacrifice his career, and wanted the wife to come and live with him, but she wanted to focus on her academics and career.

Taking note of this, the high court opined, "Since both are equally qualified and educated and pursuing their careers as they desire, this Court cannot find fault with act of the respondent in prioritizing her academics or career".

However, the court noted that the couple had lived apart for nearly nine years and all attempts at reconciliation had failed.

It emphasized that while individual career choices and disagreements alone may not amount to legal cruelty, the long-standing separation and failure of all efforts at mediation demonstrated that the marriage had broken down irretrievably.

Court opined that there was no possibility of reunion between the couple. Accordingly, it allowed the husband's appeal and dissolved the marriage.

Case Title: Xxx vs Yyy