The Madras High Court has held that a woman going abroad for her higher studies and failing to inform her husband and his family, cannot be termed as cruelty. The High Court couldn’t find fault with the act of the woman in prioritizing her academics or career.

The Appeal before the High Court was filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, praying to set aside the Order made by the Family Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant to dissolve the marriage between him and the respondent by a decree of divorce.

The Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice R. Sakthivel said, “The petitioner further contends that the respondent left for the USA for higher studies without due intimation to the petitioner and his family. The respondent’s contention is that she had conveyed the same to the petitioner in August 2016 via Skype and that his family members were also duly informed by her parents. The said fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. He had brought up the issue only in his Email dated January 27, 2017, while even according to him he came to know about the same on November 2, 2016. Further, it has to be noted that the respondent went there for her higher studies and even while assuming that she failed to inform the petitioner and his family, that alone cannot be termed as cruelty, considering the facts and circumstances of this case.”

Advocate Sheila Jayaprakash represented the Appellant, while Advocate Geetha Ramaseshan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) got married in the year 2014 according to Hindu rites and customs. It was the husband’s case that the respondent exhibited scornful, disrespectful, and indifferent behavior during her brief stay at her matrimonial home in Puducherry and later in Hyderabad, where the petitioner was employed. It was stated that the respondent joined a job in January 2015 without informing the petitioner and misused his financial and professional status.

In April 2015, the disputes escalated, prompting both sides’ family intervention, during which the respondent admitted to her behavior. Then, allegedly she withdrew from marital companionship, removed her mangal sutra and caused mental distress. Further, the petitioner secured a job in Canada and attended training in the USA. When the petitioner returned to India, the respondent refused to join him in Puducherry. In August 2016, the petitioner learnt that the respondent had moved to the USA for higher studies without informing him. His emails went unanswered. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the parties are equally educated and qualified, and they both aspire to stand on their own legs and desire to focus on their career. The petitioner is not ready to sacrifice his career, and wants the respondent / his wife, to come and live with him. Similarly, the respondent wants to focus on her academics and career as well.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that though there arose some quarrel leading to a physical altercation, both parties condoned and continued to live together thereafter. “On the basis of available evidence, this Court is of the view that the scuffle between the couple was a minor one and it can only be considered as normal wear and tear in a marriage. Such minor scuffles, though not desirable and appropriate, does not amount to cruelty”, the Bench stated.

Addressing the contention that the respondent left for the USA for higher studies without due intimation to the petitioner and his family, the Bench said, “Further, it has to be noted that the respondent went there for her higher studies and even while assuming that she failed to inform the petitioner and his family, that alone cannot be termed as cruelty, considering the facts and circumstances of this case.” As regards the other incidents, which, according to the petitioner, caused cruelty to him, the petitioner had failed to substantiate the same through proper evidence. The photographs and other evidence available on record suggested that the couple were leading a typical and happy life, and the respondent was a dutiful wife.

“Both are not ready to compromise on each other’s priorities and consequently, have some spousal conflicts. Since both are equally qualified and educated and pursuing their careers as they desire, this Court cannot find fault with act of the respondent in prioritizing her academics or career. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ground of cruelty for dissolution of marriage has not been made out in this case”, it said.

The Bench also noticed that the petitioner and the respondent had been living separately for about nine years. Further, the steps taken by the Trial Court for conciliation for reunion ended in vain. Thus, in light of the fact that there was no possibility of reunion between the petitioner and the respondent, the Bench allowed the appeal and held, “Accordingly, the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on July 2, 2014, stands dissolved.”

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Case No.: CMA NO.756 OF 2021)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Sheila Jayaprakash

Respondent: Advocate Geetha Ramaseshan

Click here to read/download Order



Madras High CourtJustice Nisha BanuJustice R.Sakthivel

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.