Why Jharkhand High Court refused divorce to man claiming wife needed ‘satsang permission’ for conjugal relations

“If the discipleship constitutes complete detachment from worldly life and marital obligation and if the wife’s devotion to the religion causes extreme mental cruelty, such as abandoning household responsibilities or causing harm to the marital relationship, it may be pursued under the ground of cruelty but in the instant case the appellant/husband has failed to prove the element of cruelty against the respondent-wife,” it added further.

Background

• The husband had alleged that his wife remained in her matrimonial home for only two days and did not allow the husband to consummate the marriage on the ground that she was a disciple of a Satsang and that prior permission was required for the consummation of marriage.
• He further alleged that she insisted he also become a member of the satsang by taking “diksha”, demanded that they live separately from his elderly parents, and eventually refused to return to the matrimonial home.
• On these grounds, the husband argued that he was subjected to mental cruelty and sought divorce.
• His wife denied the allegation of her being engaged in any Satsang or disciple of any Guru.
• After hearing the parties, the family court dismissed the husband’s plea for divorce.

Findings

• “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.
• Cruelty must be of such a type which 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.
• 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.
• Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be inflated to abolish what is said to have been made in heaven.
• Although the husband has taken the ground of cruelty meted out to him by his wife but, in the course of trial he has failed to establish the element of cruelty meted out to him at the hands of the respondent-wife.
• It needs to refer herein that a spouse converting to another religion (non-Hindu) is a valid ground for divorce however, merely becoming a disciple or following a specific sect within Hinduism does not constitute legal conversion, making it an insufficient ground for divorce.
• The judgment and decree passed by the family judge is not coming under the fold of the perversity.