The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that forcing a husband to live in a separate room is considered cruelty, granting divorce to a man under these circumstances. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, observed that the wife’s actions of isolating her husband and threatening him with suicide or legal cases if he entered her room amounted to cruelty.
The court noted that the wife had effectively abandoned the marriage by insisting on separate living arrangements. It was irrelevant whether she stayed in the same house or not, as the husband clearly stated he was not allowed to enter her room. The court emphasized that cohabitation is a crucial aspect of marriage. If a wife forces her husband to live separately, it deprives him of his conjugal rights, which can negatively affect his mental and physical health, constituting both physical and mental cruelty.
The couple married in 2016; this was the woman’s first marriage and the man’s second. By 2018, the husband sought divorce, claiming the relationship was only harmonious for the first 4-5 months. After that, he alleged his wife began to harass him. Although the wife initially appeared in the family court, she stopped responding to summons, leading the case to proceed without her.
In January 2023, the family court ruled against the husband, stating he did not provide specific details of the threats or continuous incidents. Unhappy with this outcome, the husband appealed to the High Court. The High Court found that the wife had not filed any counter-statement to the husband’s claims, implying her admission by not challenging them.
The High Court further pointed out that the family court wrongly dismissed the testimony of the husband’s father. The High Court clarified that, in matrimonial disputes, family members are natural witnesses, and their testimonies should not be disregarded on the assumption of bias. The evidence presented by the husband remained unchallenged, which should have been enough for the family court to decide based on the balance of probabilities, a standard different from the criminal court’s requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The court also dismissed the family court’s concerns about the man’s previous marriage, noting that his first marriage ended in mutual consent without any allegations from his first wife. The High Court concluded that there was adequate evidence to establish grounds for cruelty, justifying the divorce. Although desertion was also evident, the court focused on cruelty as it was sufficient to grant the divorce, ruling in favor of the husband and dissolving the marriage.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
