The Court was addressing a case in which it determined that a woman had made reckless allegations of dowry harassment against her estranged husband, who was seeking a divorce.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that no spouse, irrespective of gender, is expected to remain in a marriage under the threat of malicious criminal prosecution.
A Division Bench, consisting of Justices Donadi Ramesh and Saumitra Dayal Singh, made this observation in a case where a man (the appellant) sought a divorce from his estranged wife on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.
The appellant claimed that his wife had falsely accused him of cruelty and dowry harassment in a criminal case. However, the wife’s brother testified that no dowry demand had ever been made.
The Court concluded that the wife’s reckless allegations against her husband and his family, including minor siblings, amounted to extreme cruelty.
As a result, the Court granted the appellant a divorce, nothing,
“Legally, no spouse whether male or female may be expected to continue in a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution certainly leads to loss of dignity and reputation, besides other consequences that may arise, if a person is arrested or tried for the offence alleged.”
The Court made these observations while considering appeals filed by the husband against two orders issued by a family court. One order dismissed his petition for divorce, while the other granted restitution of conjugal rights in favor of his estranged wife.
The couple had married in 1992, but after about two years of strained cohabitation, the wife left her husband’s home in 1995 and moved in with her parents. Despite the husband’s (appellant’s) attempts to reconcile, the couple was unable to resolve their differences, leading him to file for divorce in 1999.
Following the initiation of divorce proceedings, the wife filed a criminal case against her husband, accusing him of offences under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In 2010, after the family court dismissed his plea, the husband approached the High Court seeking a divorce. The High Court took into account the long period of separation between the spouses and noted that a complete denial of companionship to one’s spouse, without a valid reason, could itself amount to cruelty.
The Court emphasized that cruelty is not solely defined by the absence of cohabitation or physical intimacy and that such a narrow standard might be regressive and outdated.
At the same time, any person who enters into matrimonial relationship, does undertake a social and personal obligation to enjoy and share his / her company with their chosen spouse,” the Court added.
The Court observed that a Hindu marriage is considered a sacrament rather than just a social contract. It noted that when one partner abandons the other without a valid reason, the sacrament loses its essence and spirit.
“That death of the spirit and soul of a Hindu marriage may constitute cruelty to the spouse who may be thus left alone, devoid not only of physical company but also completely deprived of company of their spouse, at all planes of human existence,” the Court noted.
The Court noted that it has been 29 years since the appellant’s wife deserted him. It further observed that the wife’s (respondent’s) extremely cruel behavior towards the husband and his family had instilled a reasonable fear that continuing to live with her could be detrimental.
The High Court also highlighted that the trial court had failed to consider these factors when it dismissed the husband’s divorce petition. Consequently, the High Court overturned the trial court’s orders and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
