Court Is Neither Counsellor Nor Executioner To Compel Parties To Continue With 'Unworkable Marriage': Telangana High Court
While allowing a husband's appeal seeking a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Telangana High Court reiterated that marriage cannot be forced on individuals, and the Court must not act as a hangman or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband in a loveless marriage.“The obliteration of marital ties is entirely for the persons in the marriage and upon...
While allowing a husband's appeal seeking a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Telangana High Court reiterated that marriage cannot be forced on individuals, and the Court must not act as a hangman or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband in a loveless marriage.
“The obliteration of marital ties is entirely for the persons in the marriage and upon them to assess and resolve in the best way they think fit. The Court has a limited role in the whole affair and should not act as an executioner (in the sense of a hangman) or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband, particularly where the meeting of minds between them has irrevocably ended. It is certainly not the Court's work to ferret out faultlines in the evidence in negation of cruelty in an altruistic zeal for preserving the marriage. This kind of exercise is unwarranted and pointless,” said a Division of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini.
The case involved a couple who had been married for over a decade but had experienced severe marital discord soon after their wedding. The wife had left the matrimonial home in 2011 and had subsequently filed five criminal cases against her husband, including cases under Section 498A IPC, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. The husband had been acquitted in some of these cases.
The husband filed a petition for divorce in the trial court, citing cruelty and desertion as grounds. However, the trial court dismissed his petition, leading him to appeal to the High Court.
The husband's counsel argued that the wife's relentless filing of criminal cases had caused immense mental and emotional distress to the husband. He further contended that the couple had been living separately for a considerable period and there was no possibility of reconciliation.
The wife's counsel argued that the husband should be responsible for the wife's financial needs and that divorce should not be granted without ensuring her maintenance.
The High Court, after considering the facts and arguments, held that the wife's actions amounted to mental cruelty, and the marriage had broken down beyond repair. "Cruelty is just one of the splinters of a collapsing structure where the substratum of the marriage has broken down in a way in which the structure cannot be preserved or re-built."
The court relied on multiple judgments and stated that the concept of cruelty is not static and evolves with societal changes. It acknowledged that repeated filing of false cases can be a form of mental cruelty and can be a strong ground for granting divorce.
The Bench also clarified that while passing a divorce decree, the Court cannot compel the parties to stay in a love-less marriage and must only ensure that the litigation isn't filed with ulterior motives.
“The bottom line is that marital ties cannot be forced on persons who are unwilling to make the marriage work. The Court must however be convinced that the rupture of matrimonial ties is complete and irreversible and is not an unilateral move on the part of one of the partners for collateral motives.”
Thus the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: D. Narsimha ,iNarsimlu vs, Smt D Anita Vaishnavi
Case number: CMA 68 of 2022
Counsel for the appellant: G NAGESH
Counsel for respondent: N LALITHA REDDY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 107