The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the husband’s divorce decree on grounds of cruelty, emphasizing that the wife had insulted and pressured him to separate from his family.
The Family Court had previously granted the divorce, citing the wife’s cruelty in coercing the husband to live apart from his family while also subjecting him to insults and abuse. Although the wife and her father were acquitted in the criminal case involving charges under Sections 306 read with 34 of the IPC, the husband successfully proved his case for divorce based on cruelty.
Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, “in order to constitute cruelty, the party alleging the same must prove on record that the behaviour of the party complained against is or has been as such that it has made it impossible for the said party to live in the company of the party complained against.”
Speaking for the bench, Justice Singh said that the acts of cruelty must be such from which it can be reasonably and logically concluded that there cannot be any re-union between the parties due to the said acts. “The cruelty can either be physical or mental or both. Though there is no mathematical formula to devise the extent of cruelty alleged against, yet the facts and circumstances of each and every case must be examined in the light of the gravity contained in them,” he said.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Family Court’s decision to grant a divorce, where the respondent-husband’s petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was upheld, dissolving the marriage on grounds of cruelty.
The husband claimed that after their marriage in 2018, his wife pressured him to live separately from his family and frequently used offensive language against him.
It was further alleged that the wife harassed her in-laws by filing criminal complaints, which were purportedly linked to her father-in-law’s suicide. However, both she and her father were acquitted in the case.
The counsel representing the appellant-wife contended that the respondent-husband had falsely implicated her and her father in a criminal case under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was further alleged that the husband and his family had been demanding dowry, subjecting her to mental harassment, and physically assaulting her.
After examining the arguments, the Court observed that although the appellant-wife and her father were acquitted in the criminal case under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC related to the respondent-husband’s father’s suicide, the wife failed to appear as a witness to challenge the evidence presented by the husband.
The Court concluded that the respondent-husband had successfully substantiated his allegations of cruelty in the divorce petition through evidence, while the appellant-wife did not provide any evidence to counter his claims.
Citing Ramchander v. Ananta [(2015) 11 SCC 539], the Court emphasized that cruelty is not explicitly defined under the Act and must be interpreted based on one spouse’s conduct toward the other. It clarified that cruelty can be either physical or mental but must be proven with evidence.
Consequently, the bench noted that the appellant-wife had failed to provide any evidence to support the claims made in her written statement. Therefore, it concluded that, in the absence of such evidence, the Family Court’s findings could not be deemed patently illegal or perverse.
