Allahabad HC: Family Squabble Is Not Cruelty Justifying Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Law

In a recent decision, the Allahabad High Court Division Bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, highlighted that a mere family squabble cannot be considered an act of cruelty sufficient to justify the dissolution of a Hindu marriage. The ruling reaffirms the principle that family law courts must not impose an idealistic notion of family behaviour when determining what constitutes cruelty within matrimonial disputes.

The appeal, filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenged the trial court's decision to dissolve the marriage without provision for permanent alimony, on the grounds of alleged cruelty by the wife.

The Bench heard submissions from Advocate Vibhu Rai, representing the appellant-wife, and Advocate Pawan Singh Pundir, appearing for the respondent-husband. The Court noted that the divorce was filed by the respondent-husband in 2013, merely two years after their marriage in 2011, alleging that the wife displayed quarrelsome and rude behaviour toward his family, which was claimed to amount to cruelty.

A crucial aspect of the husband's case was an incident on January 3, 2013, wherein the respondent alleged that the appellant, accompanied by her relatives, assaulted his mother, causing grievous injuries. However, during cross-examination, the husband admitted that no FIR had been lodged regarding the incident, and that the police authorities had treated it as a "petty family squabble." Furthermore, the medical report presented by the respondent as evidence was a photocopy, and the alleged injuries were not substantiated with original documents or credible details regarding the treatment received by the mother.

The trial court, relying on this unverified evidence, had accepted the plea of cruelty. However, the High Court found that the evidence presented lacked credibility, as the respondent had not proven the alleged acts of cruelty adequately. The High Court also emphasised that the institution of criminal cases by the wife, per se, does not constitute cruelty unless it can be established that those cases were false or malicious. Since many of the criminal proceedings filed by the appellant-wife were still pending, the Court could not draw any definitive conclusion about their validity or determine them to be an act of cruelty.

The appellant-wife had filed multiple criminal cases against the respondent-husband, including those under Section 498-A (cruelty to wife), Section 323 (causing hurt), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court observed that merely filing these cases does not constitute cruelty unless proven false or malicious. The trial court's reliance on these criminal cases, without proper evidence to determine their falsity, was therefore misplaced.

The Court also accentuated a fundamental procedural principle: allegations of cruelty must be specifically pleaded in the plaint for the opposing party to have an opportunity to rebut them. The husband's attempt to introduce new allegations at the stage of oral evidence, without prior pleading, was found to be procedurally flawed. As such, the Court concluded that the trial court's reliance on such evidence was erroneous and constituted a departure from legal procedure, thereby invalidating the trial court’s conclusions.

Importantly, the Bench reiterated that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not recognized as a statutory ground for divorce under Hindu marriage law. Thus, while the marriage between the parties had undoubtedly deteriorated, and despite the fact that they had been living separately for over eleven years, the Court could not grant a divorce based on this fact alone.

In concluding its judgement, the Allahabad High Court observed, “What may have occurred may therefore, continue to be described as a family squabble which may never acquire the degree or status of an act of cruelty as may lead to dissolution of a Hindu marriage.” It further emphasised that the courts, while adjudicating family law matters, are not required to hold the parties to an idealised standard of familial relations. Unless the facts proven before the Court clearly establish cruelty, the Court should refrain from imposing its own views of what ideal family conduct should be.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the appeal, thus denying the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

Cause Title: K v. R

Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Gaur and Mr.Vibhu Rai

Advocates for the Mr. Pawan Singh Pundir, Mr. Rakesh Ojha and Mr. Sukram Pal