If small disputes in marriage are viewed as "cruelty" by courts, then many marriages would risk being dissolved: Allahabad High Court

If small disputes in a marriage are viewed as 'cruelty' by courts under divorce law, then many marriages would risk being dissolved even if there is no actual cruelty by either spouse, the Allahabad High Court recently observed..Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Shiv Shanker Prasad made the observation while directing the judicial separation of an estranged married couple instead of directly allowing a plea for divorce. "If courts were to recognize and act on small disputes or occurrences and read them as completion of ingredients of cruelty, many marriages where parties may not be enjoying best relations may stand exposed to dissolution without any real cruelty being committed," the Court's order stated.The Court also said that if a person accuses her or his spouse of having an extramarital affair, the allegation must be clearly stated and not implied or left to the court's imagination during divorce proceedings.“To infer existence of illicit relationship, it is not to be left to the imagination of the Court what the parties may have intended to say by way of fact allegation. The allegation of one party having illicit relationship with another must be clear," the Court observed in its November 3 order..By way of background, the couple married in 2013. The husband submitted that the wife refused to consummate their marriage, fought with his parents and once instigated a mob to chase him by calling him a thief. She also filed a dowry case against him, the Court was told. They lived together until July 2014 but did not cohabit thereafter, he submitted. Later, the husband sought divorce from a family court citing cruelty by the wife.The wife, meanwhile, accused the husband of having an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law.After a family court declined to allow the husband's plea for divorce, he moved an appeal before the High Court..The High Court said that considering minor incidents and disputes as "cruelty" could lead to the dissolution of many marriages. In order to constitute marital cruelty, the act has to be serious enough to hinder any efforts are reconciliation. “Cruelty is not defined under the Act yet it has to be an act serious enough as may not allow a prudent person an opportunity or conviction to resolve matrimonial discord being faced by them or as may not burden them to continue to live in matrimony. Such acts, by very nature must included things or occurrences of very serious nature having deleterious effect on the relationship such as may be seen to prevent the parties to seek reconciliation,” the Court explained. .In this case, the Court noted that there seemed to be some credence to the husband's claim that his estranged wife had instigated a mob to chase after him to cause him embarrassment. “To instigate a mob on a false allegation only for the purposes of causing embarrassment may never be accepted as normal conduct. At the same time, no formal arrest was made and no FIR was lodged on such false allegation. Thus, it may not complete the ingredients of cruelty that are necessary to be established for the purposes of grant of decree of divorce,” the Court added..The Court also noted that the wife had only alleged that her husband was having an affair because he slept in the same room as his sister-in-law and her children. Inferring an illicit relationship on the basis of this aspect alone would not be justified, the Court said. .All the same, the bench noted that there were serious disputes between the warring spouses, that their marriage was never consummated and that there was little scope for their reconciliation. .Hence, the Court proceeded to allow the parities to separate, instead of dissolving the marriage at the present stage. "We find that the learned court below has erred in not considering the grant of alternative relief in terms of section 13A of the (Hindu Marriage) Act. The dispute between the parties having arisen immediately after their marriage and it being a proven fact that their marriage has neither been consummated nor they have cohabited for nine years clearly indicates lack of bond and/ or healthy relationship between the parties," the Court observed.Consequently, the Court granted a decree of judicial separation to the appellant-husband..Advocate Satish Chaturvedi represented appellant (husband). Advocate Yogendra Pal Singh represented respondent (wife)..[Read Order]