The Court held that the husband’s claims of cruelty were nothing more than the usual challenges and disagreements in married life.”
The Allahabad High Court recently held that accusing a wife of engaging in unnecessary quarrels with her husband does not, by itself, provide adequate grounds to prove mental agony for granting a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. [Dr. Bagish Kumar Mishra v. Rinki Mishra]
The case involved an appeal by a husband challenging a family court’s decision to dismiss his divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled that the husband’s allegations of cruelty were merely reflective of the typical challenges and disagreements commonly experienced in married life.
“The allegations with regard to cruelty as set out by the appellant/ husband, are nothing but the normal wear and tear in married life … The allegations that she was quarreling with him without any reason, in the considered view of this Court, are not sufficient to form any opinion that the appellant/husband is undergoing acute mental pain, agony, suffering, disappointment and frustration and therefore it is not possible for him to live in the company of the respondent/wife, “ the Court observed.
The Court determined that the husband had not substantiated his claims beyond the ordinary difficulties of a strained marital relationship, finding no legal basis to justify granting a divorce.
The appellant, a government doctor, sought divorce on the grounds of mental and physical cruelty.
He contended that his 2015 marriage had been conducted under coercion and alleged that, post-marriage, he faced significant restrictions and accusations, including defamatory claims of immoral behavior. Additionally, he accused his wife of subjecting him to physical assault and blackmail through manipulated images.
The wife refuted these allegations, maintaining that the marriage was consensual and that they had lived together as husband and wife for several years. She accused the appellant of misleading the Court and subjecting her to harassment and exploitation. She further alleged that his claims were fabricated to secure a divorce and pursue a relationship with another woman.
The appellant, on the other hand, contended that his wife’s behavior, including filing multiple police complaints, making defamatory accusations, and fostering a hostile marital environment, constituted cruelty under the law. He argued that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate these factors, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
The High Court concluded that the appellant had not provided specific or credible evidence to support his claims. It observed that the allegations made by the appellant were vague and lacked clarity.
“All the allegations levelled by the appellant/husband are general and omnibus in nature. The major allegation amongst them is with regard to her not permitting him to meet his parents and friends and regarding misbehaviour with him in front of his friend and hospital staff and also having lodged frivolous complaints against the appellant, which alone is not sufficient to grant a decree of divorce. The complaints lodged by the respondent/wife had to be proved false and malicious by the Appellant, so as to meet the threshold of cruelty,” the Court observed.
The Court observed that the wife’s allegations of physical and mental harassment seemed to be more substantiated than the appellant’s claims.
“The instances of physical and mental harassment, as pleaded and asserted by the respondent/wife in her written statement, are on the better footing than those alleged by the appellant/husband,” the Court said.
The Court held that the husband’s allegations lacked the seriousness and weight necessary to warrant the dissolution of the marriage. Consequently, his appeal was dismissed.
