The Allahabad High Court recently observed that if a wife refuses to live with her husband and forces him to stay in a separate room, she is denying him his conjugal rights, which constitutes cruelty.
The Division Bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this observation while granting a divorce to a man who claimed his wife had forced him to live in a separate room and threatened him with suicide and criminal charges if he entered her room. The Court noted that the wife had effectively ended the marital relationship by insisting on living in separate rooms.
The Court also noted that it was irrelevant whether the wife was still living in the house, as the husband had clearly stated that she refused to allow him into her room.
“Cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse impact on his mental and physical well being and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty. The plaintiff’s allegation of being wrongfully deprived of his conjugal rights has not been controverted by the defendant-respondent and the same has been admitted by implication,” the Court observed.
The couple married in 2016; it was the woman’s first marriage and the man’s second.
In 2018, the husband sought a divorce, claiming their relationship was only normal for the first 4-5 months before his wife started harassing him.
Although the wife initially appeared in family court, she later ignored the summons, causing the case to proceed in her absence.
In January 2023, the family court ruled against the husband, stating that he had not provided sufficient details about his wife’s threats or proven that these incidents were ongoing.
The husband then turned to the High Court for relief.
The Court noted that while the wife initially appeared in family court, she did not submit any written response to challenge the husband’s claims, which effectively implied that she accepted his allegations.
“It was submitted in the written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff (husband) before the Family Court that the defendant (wife) has deserted the plaintiff since April, 2017 i.e., merely five months after the parties got married and she is not performing her matrimonial obligations since then. A period of five years had elapsed since the defendant stopped performing her matrimonial obligations towards the plaintiff and that she continuously behaved in a cruel manner,” the Court added.
The Bench also criticized the Family Court for dismissing the testimony of the man’s father.
The trial court had argued that the father’s support for his son’s case was expected due to their relationship. However, the High Court disagreed with this reasoning.
“In matrimonial disputes, the events in question take place between the parties within the four walls of their house, and the family members are the most natural witnesses of those events. The testimony of family members cannot be discarded on the assumption that they will only support the plaintiff’s case. The Family Court lost sight of the fact that the entire evidence of the plaintiff – appellant has remained unrebutted. The civil suits are required to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is applicable in criminal cases, does not apply to civil suits,” it said.
The High Court also observed that the Family Court was improperly swayed by the man’s disputes with his first wife.
It highlighted that his previous marriage had ended in a mutual consent divorce and that no allegations had been made against him by his first wife.
“The Family Court was not justified in making assumptions against the plaintiff on the ground that his earlier marriage had failed,” the Court said.
As a result, the Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to prove grounds for cruelty and grant the divorce.
“Although the ground of the plaintiff’s desertion by the defendant is also established from the material available on record, since the Family Court did not frame any issue on this point, and the ground of cruelty alone is sufficient for allowing the appeal, there is no need go into this question in this appeal,” it added, while ruling in favour of the husband by dissolving the marriage.
