Wife's Mere Wish That Husband Live As 'Gharjamai' Is Not Cruelty Under HMA: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has held that a wife's mere wish that her husband should live with her at her parental home as a 'Gharjamai' does not amount to matrimonial cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a husband challenging the Family Court's refusal to grant him divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The husband had alleged that his wife wanted him to leave his elderly and ailing parents and shift to Patna to live with her parents as a Gharjamai. He claimed that he was unable to agree to this because there was nobody else to look after his parents.

The Bench, however, held that the husband's allegations did not establish cruelty.

Husband alleged Wife wanted him to become Gharjamai

The couple married in Patna on November 21, 2008, according to Hindu rites and customs, and had a daughter. The husband claimed that their matrimonial life initially began peacefully, with his parents respecting his wife.

According to his case, the wife subsequently began frequently visiting her parental home in Patna. He alleged that he later came to know that her parents wanted him to leave his parents and live with them as a Gharjamai. He claimed that he rejected the proposal because his parents were old and ailing.

The husband alleged that the wife went to Patna on February 24, 2013 and thereafter did not return to the matrimonial home. He further claimed that she repeatedly asked him to come to Patna and live as a Gharjamai, while she was working there.

He consequently instituted proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The Family Court, Hazaribagh, dismissed his suit after finding that the alleged cruelty had not been established. The husband then approached the High Court in appeal.

Wife disputed allegations

The wife did not appear before the Family Court despite service of notice and publication, following which the proceedings were conducted ex parte. However, before the High Court, an amicus curiae appearing for her defended the Family Court's decision.

It was submitted that the wife had herself faced physical, mental and economic harassment and had performed her marital obligations. The wife maintained that she wanted to continue the marriage and live with her husband.

The husband relied on, among other things, Supreme Court decisions concerning cruelty and argued that the prolonged separation and alleged insistence that he leave his parents amounted to mental cruelty.

High Court examines meaning of ‘Cruelty’

The Division Bench referred to the settled legal position that matrimonial cruelty cannot be determined according to a fixed formula and must be assessed in the context of the circumstances of each marriage.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, the Court noted that “cruelty” has no fixed definition and may depend upon the parties' social and economic circumstances, culture and human values.

The Bench also referred to Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, observing that conduct constituting cruelty must be grave and weighty and that trivial irritations and the normal wear and tear of married life would not ordinarily constitute mental cruelty.

It ultimately summarised the applicable standard: "Thus, from the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that ‘Cruelty’ under matrimonial law consists of conduct so grave and weighty as to lead one to the conclusion that one of the spouses cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. It must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life."

'Visiting Parental House Is As Good As A Right To Every Bride'

Applying these principles to the husband's allegations, the High Court considered his claim that the wife frequently visited her parental home and wanted him to live there as a Gharjamai.

The Bench agreed with the Family Court that frequent visits by a wife to her parental home could not, by themselves, be treated as cruelty.

The judgment records: "visiting parental house is as good as a right to every bride and it cannot be termed cruelty for the purpose of divorce, at any stretch of imagination."

The Court further considered the allegation concerning the Gharjamai arrangement.

It noted that the Family Court had observed that the practice of Gharjamai was an old custom prevailing in society, whether a husband agrees to such an arrangement remains his choice.

The Court observed: "mere wish of respondent-wife that the appellant/husband should live as Gharjamai will not constitute cruelty for the purpose of Hindu Marriage Act and it cannot be termed cruelty for the purpose of divorce, at any stretch of imagination".

The Court consequently held that the husband had failed to substantiate the alleged cruelty and that the Family Court's finding was not perverse.

The High Court held that the Family Court had properly appreciated the evidence and found no ground to interfere with its decision.

The Bench concluded that the alleged cruelty had not been proved and that the wife's wish that the husband live as a Gharjamai, as well as her visits to her parental home, could not constitute cruelty for the purpose of divorce.

The Court accordingly dismissed the husband's divorce petition.

Case Title: Rahul Choubey v. Poonam Pathak