The Allahabad High Court has observed that a free-willed wife going out of her own to the market and other places and not observing 'Parda' cannot be termed as committing cruelty against her husband, observing that differences of perception towards life may give rise to different behaviours by individuals.

The Court was considering appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against judgement dismissing his plea seeking divorce.

The division bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, "...we are unable to accept the submissions being advanced inasmuch as only this much has been stated that the respondent has been a free-willed person, who would go out of her own to the market and other places and did not observe 'Parda'. Further, insofar as the such acts and other acts have been attributed to the respondent, it is difficult to accept the same as acts of cruelty committed, inasmuch as both parties are well educated."

The husband was represented by Advocate Himanshu Pandey while the wife was represented by Advocate Shashank Kumar.

The husband had raised two grounds, mental cruelty and desertion. He alleged that the total duration of that cohabitation was up to 8 months from the date of marriage. It was admitted that parties have not cohabited since then and 23 years since their separation. Their only child is a major now of 29 years and no proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights was ever initiated.

The Court found that the ground of cruelty is not made out.

"The appellant is a qualified Engineer, whereas the respondent is a government teacher. Difference of perception towards life may give rise to different behaviours by individuals. Such difference of perception and behaviour may be described as cruel by the others by observing the behaviour of another. At the same time, such perceptions are neither absolute nor such as may themselves give rise to allegations of cruelty unless observed and proven facts are such as may be recognized in law to be acts of cruelty. The act of of the respondent being free-willed or a person, who would travel on her own or meet up with other members of the civil society without forming any illegal or immoral relationship, may not be described as an act of cruelty committed, in these facts," the Court observed.

With regard to other acts of cruelty attributed to the wife, of causing verbal insults to the husband about his poor economic status, the Court observed that the allegations do not contain details of time or place of occurrence and such acts have not been proven before the District Court.

The allegations of the wife having an immoral relationship with another man also remained unsubstantiated. On the allegation of desertion, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita. "In any case, the respondent is found to have deserted the appellant and to have sustained that desertion for a long period, which has now exceeds 23 years. That wilful act of the respondent and her refusal (even now) to cohabit with the appellant to revive her matrimonial relationship appears to be an act of desertion committed of degree as may itself lead to dissolution of her marriage. Here, we note, the respondent has not only refused cohabitation with the appellant, but she has also never made any effort to seek restitution of her conjugal rights," the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Case No.- First Appeal No. - 253 of 2007 (2024:AHC:193172-DB)

Click here to read/ download Order