No Fixed Parameters For Cruelty In Matrimonial Case, Rude Language And Ill-Treatment Wouldn't Per Se Constitute Legal Cruelty: Madras HC

A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Kalaimathi said that what amounted to acts of cruelty would differ from person to person, man to woman and thus, a broad approach was needed. The court also added that the matters had to be dealt with latitudinarianism in the modern era.

“With the passage of time, due to the impact, especially electronic media, the concept of cruelty is bound to change from time to time. There cannot be any fixed parameters for determining the issue of cruelty in matrimonial matters. Therefore, it is prudent to adjudicate on a case to case basis, by evaluating in a given situation. Acts of cruelty would differ from person to person and man to a woman and a broad approach is the need of the hour in matrimonial matters. In the modern era, issues have to be dealt with some latitudinarianism,” the court said.

The high court, while making the observations, refused relief to a husband who had claimed divorce on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty. The high court also refused to interfere with the order of the Family Court allowing the petition filed by wife for restitution of conjugal rights.

“At times, some persons language would be with rudeness or acts of ill-treatment per se would not constitute legal cruelty. We do not find any deliberate refusal to cooperate or a calculated harassment or any ill-treatment of a grave and serious character on the part of the respondent/wife,” the court observed.

The husband had approached the High Court challenging the order of the Family court. He submitted that couple got married in 2015 as per Christian rites & customs. He submitted that after marriage, since the wife wanted to pursue MA degree, they shifted their residence and the educational expenses were borne by the husband and his father. He added that the wife used to curse the husband and use unparliamentary language with him and even used to pick up quarrel with him and his family. He also submitted that the wife had given a false dowry complaint to harass him and his family.

The wife, on the other hand, denied all these allegations and submitted that she had given utmost respect to the husband and his family. She added that she had remained a dutiful wife and taken care of the husband and his parents. She further informed the court that it was the mother in law who used to tease her saying she bought lesser jewels and dowry. She also submitted that the husband and his parents had beaten her and driven her out of the matrimonial home for which she had filed the police complaint. She submitted that she was eager to join the husband and lead a happy life.

The court noted that though the husband had made allegations of physical and mental cruelty, he had not specified even one instance or given evidence in support of the same. The court noted that it could not infer anything from the facts of the case which could prove that there were alleged acts of cruelty by the wife and thereby dismissed the husband's plea.

On the other hand, the court was satisfied that the wife had shown 'just cause' for leaving the matrimonial home. Thus, the court opined that the wife was entitled to the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mrs. Lita Srinivasan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.Thankasivan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 476

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Click Here To Read/Download Order