Occasional Refusal To Perform Marital Obligation Not Sufficient To Attract Mental Cruelty For Granting Divorce: Madhya Pradesh High Court
|A husband filed an appeal against the Family Court’s decision denying his request for divorce.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that occasional refusal to perform marital obligation is not sufficient to attract mental cruelty to grant divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A husband filed an appeal against the Family Court’s decision dismissing his petition for divorce.
A Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Ramkumar Choubey, "The appellant and the respondent were married on 14.05.2007 and lived together till March, 2024 and they have two children, which itself is a proof of well-cohabitation between them. In ordinary wear and tear of married life, occasional refusal to perform marital obligation is not sufficient to attract mental cruelty. To establish such cruelty there must be persistent refusal to have sexual relationship. Therefore, respondent cannot be held responsible for the denial of coitus so as to constitute cruelty".
Advocate Ankit Saxena appeared for the petitioner.
Background
The appellant-husband had approached the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur. The lower court had rejected his divorce petition, prompting him to seek redressal from the High Court.
According to the appellant, he married the respondent in May 2007, and they had two sons born in 2009 and 2019. He alleged that from the very beginning, their marital relationship was strained. The husband claimed that his wife refused to stay with his parents, declined to wear the Mangalsutra or apply Bindi, refused to observe family traditions, and often engaged in arguments over minor issues.
He further contended that she threatened to file false dowry cases against him and his family, denied him conjugal relations, and eventually left the matrimonial home in March 2024, taking the children and household belongings with her. He also submitted that she was only willing to return on the condition that he agreed to ensure proper care and maintenance, which he interpreted as unwillingness to reconcile sincerely.
The Family Court, however, found that the husband failed to establish two essential grounds for divorce desertion and cruelty. The Court held that the statutory requirement under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which mandates a continuous period of desertion for at least two years before the filing of the divorce petition, had not been met.
Regarding cruelty, the Family Court noted that the allegations made by the husband lacked the required seriousness and continuity to justify a decree of divorce.
Finding
Agreeing with the Family Court’s reasoning, the High Court also concluded that the husband could not substantiate his claim of cruelty. The Court clarified that for conduct to amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia), it must be so grave and severe that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse.
The Court emphasized that the couple had lived together for over 17 years and had two children, which indicated that there was cohabitation and a functional relationship for a significant period. Allegations such as minor disputes, absence during the COVID-19 period, and refusal to follow certain customs were considered too trivial to amount to cruelty.
The Court also referred to the wife’s reply notice, where she denied the allegations and expressed her readiness to return to the matrimonial home, provided she received care and fidelity from her husband. The Court found this expectation to be entirely reasonable and not indicative of any form of cruelty.
Notably, the High Court observed that the husband himself had shown an inclination towards reconciliation, which effectively amounted to condonation of any prior alleged acts of cruelty. The Bench reiterated that occasional disagreements and minor altercations are normal in any marriage and cannot be construed as grounds for divorce unless they involve consistent and serious misconduct.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision. It concluded that the husband had failed to prove that the wife had either deserted him or treated him with cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Cause Title: A vs B