Rejecting infertility as ground, Patna High Court upholds divorce over ‘cruelty’

The couple married on June 12, 2010, and underwent prolonged fertility treatment, including repeated IVF procedures, in the hope of having a child. While both spouses blamed each other for the breakdown of the marriage, the high court held that the years-long infertility struggle only formed the backdrop to the dispute and was never, by itself, a legal ground to dissolve the marriage.

Infertility treatment, emotional pressure

According to the judgment, the couple consulted several doctors and underwent infertility treatment for years, including assisted reproductive procedures such as in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Medical records showed that both actively participated in the treatment and made sustained efforts to conceive.

Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Chandra Shekhar Jha awarded permanent alimony to the woman under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The husband said he spent money for the treatment, accompanied his wife to medical consultations and remained committed throughout the process. During cross-examination, the wife admitted that he had participated in the treatment and borne the expenses.

The court observed that prolonged infertility often places great emotional pressure on couples, leading to frustration, disappointment and strained relationships. However, it clarified that the medical records neither blamed either spouse nor established matrimonial cruelty.

“It would be unrealistic to ignore the emotional consequences which prolonged infertility often produces within a marriage… The medical records clearly establish that the parties continued to make efforts to preserve the marriage notwithstanding the emotional stress caused by childlessness,” the court said.

Dowry, assault allegations

In 2018, the wife lodged a criminal case, accusing the husband and his family of offences including attempt to murder and dowry harassment. She alleged being physically assaulted and pressured to consent to her husband’s second marriage. The man, however, maintained that the allegations were false and were filed only after matrimonial relations had broken down.

The high court noted that the criminal case eventually ended in acquittal after a full-fledged trial. It clarified that an acquittal does not automatically prove there was no cruelty in the marriage, since criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt while marital disputes are decided on the balance of probabilities.

The bench held that when serious criminal allegations remain unproved after years of litigation, they become an important factor while assessing whether the continuation of the marriage is possible. “An acquittal only means that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It does not automatically follow that every allegation made by the complainant was deliberately false,” it added.

Divorce upheld on cruelty

After going through the evidence, the high court held that the marriage did not collapse because of one isolated incident. Instead, it found that years of infertility treatment, repeated allegations and counter-allegations, failed reconciliation efforts, prolonged separation and criminal litigation had completely destroyed the trust essential for a successful marriage.

The court observed that some allegations made by both sides remained completely unproven. However, marital cruelty must be assessed by examining the total conduct of the spouses rather than isolated incidents, it said, concluding that the family court had rightly held that the husband had established mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

While the family court had also granted divorce on the ground of desertion, the high court said there was no need to examine that issue further because the ground of cruelty alone was sufficient to uphold the divorce granted.

“Viewed cumulatively with the admitted long separation, complete collapse of mutual confidence and repeated unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation, the evidence indicates that the matrimonial relationship had broken down beyond repair long before the decree came to be passed,” the court said.

While the plea was pending, the husband remarried after obtaining the family court decree. The high court held that such remarriage did not render the wife’s appeal invalid. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, it observed that an appeal against a divorce decree continues to remain maintainable despite a subsequent marriage and must be decided strictly on its merits. Since it found the divorce legally sustainable, the court said the remarriage did not affect the case.

Rs 34 lakh alimony granted

Dismissing the estranged wife’s appeal, the bench exercised its powers under the Hindu Marriage Act to award permanent alimony. The court examined the husband’s affidavit of assets and liabilities and noted that he earned a monthly salary of Rs 86,900 as an assistant teacher. It held that housing loan and personal loan EMIs could not be deducted while calculating permanent alimony.

Taking his annual income into account, the court awarded the wife permanent alimony of Rs 34.76 lakh, to be paid in two equal instalments. The first instalment must be paid within 15 days of communication of this order to the family court, while the second must be paid 60 days after the first. The court said that if the husband fails to pay the amount, the wife can move legally to recover it.