Wife’s refusal to follow orthodox customs not cruelty, rules Andhra Pradesh High Court

‘Rude, disrespectful’

The husband had sought divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion. According to him, the wife failed to follow his family’s orthodox customs and traditions, and did not properly look after his aged mother. He alleged that she was rude, quarrelsome and disrespectful towards him and his mother, and repeatedly left the matrimonial home before her last departure in 2000.

Denying the allegations, the wife claimed that she too belonged to an orthodox family and said the husband’s brother and sister-in-law were actually responsible for the disputes.

Justices Battu Devanand and Sunitha Gandham noted that the couple had been living separately since 2000 and were now around 76 and 66 years old.

The family court dismissed the husband’s plea seeking dissolution of the marriage. Aggrieved, the husband challenged the order before the high court.

No public humiliation, insults: HC

The high court noted that the couple had been living separately since 2000 and were now around 76 and 66 years old. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling, where it held that married life must be examined as a whole and a few isolated instances over several years would not amount to cruelty.

The court noted the wife’s submission that she also belonged to an orthodox family and was aware of the customs and practices and that she had also followed them. It held that the petitioner’s allegation that she did not wear a wet saree to observe the ritual of ‘madi’ – as per their custom – could not amount to cruelty by itself.

The judges observed that legal cruelty involves conduct so severe that the other spouse cannot reasonably be expected to continue in the marriage. “Not practicing a ritual is not a deliberate act to harm or torture a spouse and simply refusing a custom is not cruelty, however, if refusal turns into active public humiliation, continuous insults, or targeted malicious behaviour towards the family, then the courts can evaluate the overall conduct,” it added.

In the present case, the high court found that the record did not reveal any such humiliation or continuous insults. On consideration of all the factors, it held that the petitioner’s self-serving statements did not inspire confidence and appeared far from the truth. The court, hence, upheld the family court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.