‘Cruelty’: Allahabad High Court allows divorce to CRPF officer after husband writes to her superiors, alleges ‘unchastity’

Allegations about wife’s character

The appellant-wife, who joined the CRPF after marriage, had sought divorce on grounds of cruelty. She alleged dowry-related harassment, physical assault, and that her husband used to take away her earnings.

The court took on record the wife’s allegations that her husband had sent a letter to the wife’s superior officers, making scurrilous allegations about her character and accusing her of having a relationship with another man.

She asserted that the letter caused her humiliation and mental harassment among colleagues and superiors.

Counsel for the wife argued that the letter caused her loss of face and reputation among her peers and superiors. It was further submitted that the marriage had become ‘dead wood,’ with the parties having lived separately for 22 years and both children now grown up.

The wife also argued that the husband had never been gainfully employed and was instead expecting maintenance from her.

On the other hand, counsel for the husband contended that long separation by itself is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. He argued that the record did not disclose any specific instance of cruelty or violence, nor any particulars regarding alleged dowry demands, and therefore the family court had rightly concluded cruelty was not proved.

The court noted that the allegations of dowry and domestic violence were omnibus in nature and lacked specific details regarding time and date.

“As regards the instances of domestic violence, demand of dowry and the harassment, the same allegations do not stand proved on account of deficiency of specific allegations in relation to time and date. They are omnibus in nature and therefore have rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial court,” the court said.

‘Constitutes cruelty’

The court, however, noted that the husband did not specifically deny the alleged letter in his written statement, nor did he challenge the allegation during cross-examination.

“The content of the said letter that the appellant is leading an unchaste life as she is involved with another man which is attributable to the respondent herein stands proved because the respondent in his cross-examination is evasive on this question. While he does state in his cross-examination that he did not defame the appellant, he admits to the dispatch of a letter to the superiors,” the court observed.

Examining whether a single such allegation could amount to cruelty, the bench held that while ordinary marital tensions may not be interpreted as an act of cruelty, imputations of unchastity stand on a different footing.

“It is a settled law that every marriage has its own tensions and instances which may be interpreted as act of cruelty would be there in every marriage. However, the normal stress and strain of a married life would be inadequate to establish cruelty where the threshold would a little higher. The only exceptions to this is an imputation of unchaste conduct by the wife or the husband,” the court noted.

It therefore allowed the woman’s plea and granted divorce.

“The trial court judgement is set-aside. The divorce is granted to the appellant. The marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent…stands annulled,” the court concluded.

Karnataka High Court’s ruling

• In another case, the Karnataka High Court upheld the divorce of an Army man, holding that repeated complaints made by the wife to the Mahila Santhwana Kendra and to the husband’s superior officers in the Army constituted mental cruelty.
• A division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Rajesh Rai K described the marriage as “deadwood” while dismissing the wife’s appeal against the October 2021 family court judgment granting divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty.
• The Karnataka High Court held that the family court had rightly concluded that the husband successfully proved cruelty, particularly due to the wife’s repeated complaints to institutional authorities and superior officers, which adversely affected his service life.