Court upholds husband’s divorce over wife’s insistence to live away from ailing parents

“A matrimonial relationship does not confer upon either spouse an unfettered right to compel the other to renounce or abandon pre-existing familial responsibilities. Marriage creates a new family, but it does not, by itself, extinguish the moral and legal responsibilities which a person may owe towards aged or infirm parents,” the August 18 order read.

Pressure for separate home

The couple got married in March 2007 and lived together peacefully for about one and a half years, after which disputes arose. The husband alleged that the wife repeatedly pressured him to move away from his parents despite his father’s serious heart condition and multiple surgeries. He further alleged that she disrespected his parents, causing him mental distress.

It was also added that the couple had two sons, one of whom died in childhood due to a rare disease, but the wife’s conduct remained unchanged. It was alleged that in a family meeting in 2018, the wife gave a written apology, but her behaviour did not improve.

Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi held that mental cruelty cannot be determined by isolating one particular incident.

Later, the man claimed that during a community function in January 2022, the wife’s family assaulted and abused his parents and attempted to forcibly take away their younger son. The man also lodged a police complaint the same day and filed an application seeking divorce from the wife on the grounds of cruelty.

It was alleged that after the death of the couple’s son, the wife was under stress and the husband and his family members also blamed her for the death though the child had succumbed to a rare disease. The wife claimed that the couple had frequent quarrels and she left her husband and went to her brother’s house twice in 2018-19.

The family court later finalised the divorce in favour of the husband on the grounds of cruelty at the hands of the wife in November 2024.

Wife ‘depressed’

The woman, represented by advocate Krishna Tandon, argued that she was under depression following the son’s death but the husband did not care for her, rather he treated her with cruelty which forced her to live at her parental home.

The counsel said the wife was still willing to live with her husband, and even after his misbehaviour she did not file any complaint against him which itself shows that she wanted to live with him peacefully.

The husband was represented by advocate Aman Tamrakar, who opposed the appeal and supported the family court’s decision.

‘Wanting separate home not always cruelty’

The high court pointed out that a spouse may seek a separate home where there is a reasonable and justifiable basis, particularly where the matrimonial environment is demonstrably oppressive or unsafe.

The court said the real question was whether, in the circumstances of a particular case, persistent insistence on separate living was justified or amounted to an unreasonable attempt to compel the other spouse to distance himself from his parents.

The high court noted that this case stands on a different footing from a case where the wife simply expresses a preference to live in an independent household but the husband’s father had serious cardiac ailments and had undergone three heart surgeries.

“The respondent’s (husband) explanation that he was unwilling to abandon or distance himself from his ailing father is, therefore, neither unnatural nor unreasonable,” the court observed.

The court held that mental cruelty cannot ordinarily be determined by isolating one particular incident and the married relationship has to be examined as a whole, considering the actions of the spouses, the circumstances, its continuity and its impact upon the mind of the spouse alleging cruelty.

“Ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life or isolated quarrels would not constitute cruelty; however, where the conduct complained of is persistent and is such as to make the continuance of matrimonial life reasonably difficult, the same may amount to mental cruelty”, it added.

Dismissing the wife’s appeal, the commission upheld the family court’s order finding that the wife’s conduct overall caused mental cruelty to the husband and made it difficult to continue their marriage.