‘Normal wear and tear in marriage not cruelty’: Jharkhand High Court refuses to grant divorce to man

“Simple trivialities which can truly be described as a reasonable wear and tear of married life cannot amount to cruelty. In many marriages, each party can, if it so wishes, discover many causes for complaint, but such grievances arise mostly from temperamental disharmony. Such disharmony or incompatibility is not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage,” the order read. 

Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad pointed out that making allegations against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court may also be held to constitute cruelty.

The bench was hearing the appeal filed by the husband challenging the family court’s May 2023 order, which had granted restitution of conjugal rights to the wife.

What counts as ‘cruelty’?

• The high court pointed out that in deciding whether the conduct is cruel or not, it is to be analysed if the conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. 
• The high court pointed out that the conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. 
• “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. 
• The high court pointed out that making allegations against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty.
• Cruelty must be of such a type that it will satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony. 
• The cruelty practised may be in many forms, and it must be productive of an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it is dangerous to live with the erring party. 
• The court further added that the cruelty must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life.

Husband’s job in Odhisa, wife’s in Jharkhand

• The high court noted that the husband is a central government official and can transfer as one of his offices is also situated in Dumka, where his wife resides, who is also a government employee in Jharkhand and cannot be transferred outside the state.
• In India, it may be borne in mind that conjugal rights, i.e., the right of the husband or the wife to the society of the other spouse, is not merely a creation of the statute. 
• The high court pointed out that such a right is inherent in the very institution of marriage itself.
• Thus, the restitution of conjugal rights is often regarded as a matrimonial remedy, which is a positive remedy that requires both spouses to live together and cohabit.
• The high court pointed out that it will grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights when one spouse has withdrawn from the other’s society without a reasonable excuse. 
• This means that if a husband or wife leaves the marital home or refuses to live with their spouse without a justifiable reason, the other spouse can file a petition before the court for this remedy. 
• The court mentioned that if satisfied with the truth of the petition and finding no legal barrier, it may order the withdrawing spouse to return and resume cohabitation. 
• The high court found that the husband had failed to establish the element of perversity in the previous order, and his appeal deserves to be dismissed. 
• The object of the restitution decree was to bring about cohabitation between the estranged parties so that they could live together in the matrimonial home in amity. 

The story behind the case

• The couple had a love marriage in 2011, despite opposition from their families. They initially lived together in Ranchi and later moved to Dumka.
• It was also placed on record that the couple had no children. It was further added that the wife got a government job in Jharkhand in 2015.
• The estranged wife claimed that she helped her family members financially, but her husband was not happy with her helping attitude and used to object on many occasions, which led to serious disputes. 
• It was further added that since February 2016, the two family members allegedly started to reside with the wife against the will of the husband, so the behaviour of the husband towards his wife changed, and he did not want to reside with her. 
• The husband was posted outside the state (Odisha), while the wife worked in Jharkhand. It was claimed that he allegedly wanted her to leave her job and live with him. The wife, however, allegedly refused to resign and wanted to continue her job
• In 2016, the husband filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights and in 2018, the family court allowed the husband’s plea and directed the wife to live with him
• Aggrieved by the same, the wife challenged this order in the high court, which is still pending. 
• The wife claimed that she visited the husband and tried to live with him, but in July 2019, he refused to let her enter his house. 
• On the other hand, the husband maintained that she never stayed with him properly and refused to cohabit and deserted him. 
• Now, presently, the wife filed a case claiming that she was willing to continue the marriage. On the contrary, the husband filed a suit seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the wife.