Mere Fact That Spouses Occupy Separate Rooms Won’t Justify Finding Of Cruelty: Karnataka High Court
|The Karnataka High Court was considering an appeal against the judgment allowing the petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
While upholding a decree of divorce and award of alimony, the Karnataka High Court has held that the mere fact that spouses occupy separate rooms, without anything more, would not justify a finding of cruelty. The High Court clarified that the surrounding circumstances in which such separation took place and the manner in which the matrimonial relationship had otherwise progressed have to be taken into consideration.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment passed by the Family Court (Trial Court) whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came to be allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant husband was also directed to pay permanent alimony of ₹25,000 per month to the respondent wife.
The Single Bench of Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan held, “The mere fact that spouses occupy separate rooms, without anything more, would not justify a finding of cruelty. What is relevant is the surrounding circumstances in which such separation took place and the manner in which the matrimonial relationship had otherwise progressed.”
“In the present case, this circumstance cannot be viewed in isolation. It forms part of a prolonged matrimonial history marked by repeated disputes, allegations of abuse, estrangement, an earlier matrimonial proceeding, an attempt at reconciliation and, ultimately, failure of the relationship”, it added.
Advocate S.G. Muniswamy Gowda represented the Appellant while Advocate Swaroop. S represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised in the year 2001 at Chitrapur Math, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. The parties have two children. The respondent-wife approached the Trial Court contending that, after the marriage, the relationship between the parties gradually deteriorated. According to her, the appellant subjected her to physical, verbal and emotional cruelty, neglected her and the children, frequently abused her, and displayed an over-possessive and suspicious attitude. She further alleged that, over a period of time, the appellant had distanced her from her family members and relatives.
According to the respondent, though the parties continued to reside in the same building for some time, they occupied separate rooms and, in substance, were living separate lives. She stated that she was ultimately constrained to leave the matrimonial home along with the children and thereafter lived separately. The wife had brought to the Court’s notice that the respondent had also relied upon an earlier matrimonial proceeding instituted by the appellant under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act which was not pursued to its logical conclusion and thereafter, the parties made an attempt to resume their matrimonial life. The attempt, however, did not succeed and the parties once again started living separately. The Trial Court answered the material issues in favour of the respondent and held that the conduct of the appellant amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant husband approached the High Court.
Reasoning
On perusal of the facts, the Bench noted that the appellant admitted that the parties were residing separately within the same premises, with the appellant occupying one room and the respondent occupying another room along with one of the children. The Bench took note of the fact that the husband had earlier approached the Court seeking dissolution of the marriage and thereafter, the parties resumed their matrimonial relationship. “It is equally undisputed that the relationship subsequently deteriorated once again and the parties separated”, it added.
The Bench further stated, “The institution of an earlier matrimonial proceeding cannot, by itself, be regarded as an act of cruelty. Its relevance in the present case lies in the fact that it forms part of the matrimonial history and indicates the extent to which the relationship had deteriorated even at an earlier stage. The subsequent attempt to restore the relationship did not result in a lasting reconciliation.”
The Bench found no sufficient reason to discard the evidence of the respondent as inherently improbable. Considering that the appellant had placed considerable reliance on the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 498-A of the IPC, the Bench held, “The mere filing of a criminal complaint by one spouse against the other does not, in every case, amount to matrimonial cruelty. Likewise, an acquittal in a criminal proceeding cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the complaint was false or malicious. Criminal proceedings and matrimonial proceedings operate in different fields, and the standard of proof applicable to them is also different.”
Holding that the material on record established a prolonged course of discord, separation and failed reconciliation, accompanied by the conduct complained of by the respondent, the Bench stated, “The cumulative effect of these circumstances is sufficient to establish mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Thus, dismissing the appeal, confirming the decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent and considering the fact that the husband had sufficient means to pay alimony to the respondent wife, the Bench affirmed the direction to the appellant to pay permanent alimony of ₹25,000 per month to the wife.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:42461-DB)