Abandoning Spouse Without Reason Cruelty, Constitutes Death Of Spirit & Soul Of Hindu Marriage: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that leaving a spouse in a Hindu Marriage without any justifiable reason amounts to cruelty towards the spouse who has been left alone.The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,“A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not just a social contract where one partner abandons the other without reason or just cause or existing...
The Allahabad High Court has held that leaving a spouse in a Hindu Marriage without any justifiable reason amounts to cruelty towards the spouse who has been left alone.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not just a social contract where one partner abandons the other without reason or just cause or existing or valid circumstance necessitating that conduct, the sacrament loses its soul and spirit, though it may continue to hold its external form and body. Thus to a third party the form may be visible and they may continue to visualize the marriage as exist at the same time to the spouse the sacrament may remain dead. That death of the spirit and soul of a Hindu marriage may constitute cruelty to the spouse who may be thus left alone devoid of not only physical company completely deprived of company of their spouse, at all planes of human existence.”
Parties were married in 1989 and a child was born in 1991. Initially, the parties separated after a few years of marriage, however, cohabited again for some time and then separated again in 1999. Pursuant to a second settlement, parties cohabited again, however, they finally separated in 2001 and lived separately since then. The wife approached the High Court against the grant of divorce by the Judge, Family Court, Jhansi.
The Court observed that the marriage between the parties was bad as there were various allegations and counter allegations which had been made by them against each other including the allegation of cruelty levelled by the husband against the wife.
It was alleged that the wife's cruel behaviour had led to his mother's suicide. Court observed that the parties had separated after suicide and had been living separately for 23 years.
“There is no room for their matrimonial relationship being revived at this belated stage in the context of bad relationship suffered by them over a long period of time,” observed the Court.
Further, the Court upheld the allegations of cruelty against the appellant-wife as she had deserted her matrimonial home without good reason and despite best efforts by the respondent-husband, she had refused to come back. It was observed that the case set up for dowry demand and allegations of domestic violence were not proved before the Family Court.
For defining 'cruelty', the Court relied on N.G. Dastane (DR) v. S. Dastane, where the Supreme Court held that cruelty must be of the nature that it must cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the spouse that living in the shared household would cause danger to life or limb or health. It was further held that the Court is not to look for an ideal husband or ideal wife as an ideal couple would not come to matrimonial court.
Further reliance was placed on Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy where the Supreme Court included 'willful conduct' as a part of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
In Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, the Apex Court emphasized on mental cruelty being inflicted on the party which may be difficult to establish from direct evidence. It was held that cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances which have been established before the Court must be taken to infer whether cruelty, as alleged, has been committed.
The Court further relied on Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, where the Supreme Court held that “The word 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955 has got no fixed meaning, and therefore, gives a very wide discretion to the Court to apply it liberally and contextually. What is cruelty in one case may not be the same for another. As stated, it has to be applied from person to person while taking note of the attending circumstances.”
The bench headed by Justice Singh held that “subjective and inherently varied, individual human behaviour in the context of matrimonial relationship may be construed as cruelty to ones spouse, depending on facts of each case and its proven effect on the other spouse.”
It was held that complete denial of company by one spouse to another without any justifiable reason for continuous and unabated years amounts to cruelty.
Observing that Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not a social contract, the Court held that the appellant-wife never wished to cohabit with the husband or to revive her matrimonial relationship with the respondent-husband, as was evident from her statements made in collateral proceedings. It was observed that the wife's conduct had been the same for last 23 years without any reason. Accordingly, the Court upheld the divorce decree and granted Rs. 5 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife.
Case Title: Smt. Abhilasha Shroti vs. Rajendra Prasad Shroti 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 536 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 71 of 2012]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 536