Father-In-Law Contributing To Husband's Growth To Help Save Daughter's Marriage Not Cruelty Sans Contrary Evidence: Gujarat High Court

Dismissing a man's plea for divorce due to alleged cruelty by his wife, the Gujarat High Court said that even if his father-in-law made efforts to support him for the sake of family's welfare then in the absence of any evidence, it would not amount to interference in the couple's family life for it to be termed as cruelty.

The order was passed in the husband's appeal against a family court's order which had dismissed his plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty by his wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

A division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Nisha M Thakore in its order said, "Merely because for the welfare of the family if the father of the respondent (respondent wife) had at some stage in the life of son-in-law tried to contribute to the growth of his son-in-law to see that the family remains viable and the marriage survives, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be said that this would amount to interference in the family life of the couple so as to brand it as 'Cruelty'".

Taking note of the evidence produced, the bench while examining the trial court's order further observed that there was a difference of opinion post marriage, particularly on the wife's insistence to stay at Surat and the involvement of the husband's father-in-law in initially setting up the husband's business which seemingly was a "thorn in the matrimonial life of the parties".

The bench however said, "Nothing extraordinary which shocks the conscience of this Court, inasmuch as, to suggest that the respondent (wife) had been cruel to the appellant-husband has been brought out before the TrialCourt".

The bench further noted that the trial court had discussed the concept of cruelty in light of Supreme Court decisions and had found that the instances are not so serious which would warrant an inference that the behaviour of the wife be termed as “cruel”.

The high court said that on viewing the marriage life as a whole, the incidents alleged are not ones which can be termed as a conduct tantamounting (equivalent) to cruelty by the wife.

The couple got married in July 2008 in Kolkata and had a daughter in March 2012. Thereafter the couple went to USA and then to Canada. The husband claimed that he was pressurized to come back to Surat and engage in the business of a transport agency arranged by his father-in-law. He claimed that there was continuous interference in the family matters by his in-laws and and this resulted in cruelty at the hands of wife, and therefore, he sought divorce.

The husband alleged that the wife used vulgar language against his parents. He claimed that she resided at her parental home and would not let him meet their daughter. He claimed that once when he was out of town, his in-laws allegedly broke into the bungalow to retrieve certain documents. His counsel said that the couple has been living separately since April 2013 and the attempts to reconcile have failed. He said that it was a case of an "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" and therefore, the court should modify the decree and grant divorce to the parties

The wife alleged that the husband had a habit of gambling and she came to know of it when after went to USA. She claimed that he would beat her on flimsy and trivial issues. As a result of this, her father persuaded both to come back to Surat. The husband was requested to involve himself in the business of the wife's father which he did; subsequently he started his own business.

When the husband demanded the money for purchase of a new bungalow, her father was constrained to lend money so that she could save her marriage, she said. She also alleged that she was being harassed by her in-laws after she gave birth to her daughter. The wife's counsel said that merely because there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the perception of the husband, the same would not make his case better.

Finding that the trial court had not committed any error, the high court dismissed the man's plea.

Case title: X v/s Y

Click Here To Download Order