When Husband Chooses To Live Away From His Parents, Wife's Failure In Taking Care Of Them Does Not Amount To Cruelty: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the husband choses to live away from his parent, mere failure in taking care of his parents does not amount to cruelty.Appellant-Husband approached the High Court against the rejection of the divorce petition by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad. Husband had filed for divorce alleging cruelty by the respondent-wife as she was not taking...
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the husband choses to live away from his parent, mere failure in taking care of his parents does not amount to cruelty.
Appellant-Husband approached the High Court against the rejection of the divorce petition by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad. Husband had filed for divorce alleging cruelty by the respondent-wife as she was not taking care of his parents.
The Court observed that the admittedly appellant had himself chosen to live separately from his parents and wanted his wife to live with them to take care of them. It was held that the alleged failure on part of the wife in taking care of her in-laws is subjective in nature.
Observing that the appellant never stated what level of care was required from the wife towards his parents, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“Mere failure to take care of aged parents of a spouse that too when the spouse had chosen to live away from his matrimonial home, may never amount to cruelty. What exact situation may prevail in each household is not for the Court to examine in detail or to lay down any law or principle in that regard.”
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.
In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Apex Court held that cruelty is not restricted to physical acts but also includes mental torture and a willful conduct of the party inflicting cruelty. In the case before the Supreme Court, it was held that raising demands of dowry and continuously taunting the girl for not bringing dowry amounted to cruelty.
The Court further relied on Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, where the Supreme Court held that
“We would like to emphasize that an element of subjectivity has to be applied albeit, what constitutes cruelty is objective. Therefore, what is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce. Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 sets contours and rigours for grant of divorce at the instance of both the parties. Historically, the law of divorce was predominantly built on a conservative canvas based on the fault theory. Preservation of marital sanctity from a societal perspective was considered a prevailing factor. With the adoption of a libertarian attitude, the grounds for separation or dissolution of marriage have been construed with latitudinarianism.”
Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition and dismissed the appeal filed by the husband.
Case Title: Jyotish Chandra Thapliyal vs. Smt. Deveshwari Thapliyal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 534 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 702 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 534