Wife Declining To Cohabit With Husband By Forcing Him To Live In Separate Room Amounts To Cruelty: Allahabad High Court
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that wife denying cohabitation to the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room amounts to cruelty and therefore, is a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.The bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held,“Cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship and if...
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that wife denying cohabitation to the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room amounts to cruelty and therefore, is a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held,
“Cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse impact on his mental and physical well being and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty. The plaintiff's allegation of being wrongfully deprived of his conjugal rights has not been controverted by the defendant-respondent and the same has been admitted by implication.”
Case Background
Appellant-husband approached the High Court against the rejection of divorce plaint filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow.
In the plaint before the Family Court, the plaintiff-appellant pleaded that merely after 4-5 months of marriage, the respondent-wife started harassing him and threatened to leave. It was pleaded that the wife forced him to live in a separate room and would threaten suicide if he tried to enter the room.
Since wife did not appear despite summons by the Family Court, the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte. During examination in-chief, appellant stated that respondent-wife had refused to come back and stay with him in mediation and refused any settlement offer. Appellant's father corroborated the allegations made against the wife in the plaint. In his written submissions, appellant also stated that the wife had not fulfilled her marital obligations for the last 5 years.
Inter alia, the Family Court observed that disputes between appellant and his first wife led to their divorce. It was observed that the though allegations were made that the respondent-wife wanted divorce, the husband himself filed the divorce petition. It was also held that the father of the plaintiff was bound to support his case. Finally, it was held that the plaintiff had not adduced evidence to support his allegations in the plaint, and accordingly, the divorce petition was rejected.
High Court Verdict
The Court relied on Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, where the Supreme Court defined mental and physical cruelty and held that though physical cruelty can be proved through evidence, there may not be direct evidence to prove mental cruelty. Same must be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. It was held that one instance or act cannot be treated as mental cruelty, cumulative facts and circumstances need to be considered for determining the same.
The Court observed that even though the respondent-wife had put in appearance before the Family Court, she did not file any written statement denying the facts pleaded by the husband.
“It is a well established principle of law that admission is the best evidence and the admitted facts need no proof.”
The Court observed the appellant's father's testimony was wrongly discarded by the Family Court as in matrimonial disputes, family members are the most natural witnesses of what goes on within the four walls of the house. It was held that the testimony of the father could not be disregarded merely because it was supporting the appellant's case even though it remained unrebutted by the respondent-wife.
“The civil suits are required to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is applicable in criminal cases, does not apply to civil suits.”
Further, the Court held that Family Court erred in holding that the appellant had not proved that the wife had left home when it was clearly stated that the wife had refused to cohabit and let the husband enter her room. The Court observed that the wife had clearly deserted the matrimonial relationship between the parties.
Holding that the plaintiff being denied his conjugal rights amounted to cruelty, the Court set aside the decree of the Family Court and granted divorce to the parties.
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Srivastava v. Smt. Sweta Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 550 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 32 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 550