Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Husband's Divorce Decree Against Wife Who Forced Him To Live Separately From His Parents

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the divorce decree granted to the husband against wife for committing cruelty on the ground that she insulted and pressurised her husband to get separated from his family.

The Family Court had granted divorce on the ground that the wife had committed cruelty against husband by pressurizing him to get separated from his family and insulted and abused him in this regard. The wife and her father was although acquitted in the criminal case pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, yet the husband has been able to make out a case for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "in order to constitute cruelty, the party alleging the same must prove on record that the behaviour of the party complained against is or has been as such that it has made it impossible for the said party to live in the company of the party complained against."

Speaking for the bench, Justice Singh said that the acts of cruelty must be such from which it can be reasonably and logically concluded that there cannot be any re-union between the parties due to the said acts. "The cruelty can either be physical or mental or both. Though there is no mathematical formula to devise the extent of cruelty alleged against, yet the facts and circumstances of each and every case must be examined in the light of the gravity contained in them," he said.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the divorce granted by the Family Court, whereby, the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the respondent-husband, was allowed, and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The husband contended that he got married in 2018, and thereafter, the wife started pressuring him to live separately from his family, and she would use filthy language against him.

It was submitted that the wife used to harass her in-laws by filing criminal complaints, and as a result, her father-in law committed suicide. However, the wife and her father were acquitted in the case.

Counsel for the appellant-wife argued that the respondent-husband had falsely registered a criminal case under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellant-wife and her father. It was further argued that the respondent- husband and his family members had been raising demands of dowry and they had caused her mental harassment besides giving her beatings.

After examining the submissions, the Court found that that though the appellant-wife and her father had been acquitted in the criminal case registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC in respect of the suicide committed by the father of the respondent-husband, yet the fact remained that she did not appear in the witness box to rebut the evidence led by the respondent-husband.

The Court concluded that the allegations levelled in the divorce petition as regards the cruelty committed by the appellant-wife were proved by the respondent-husband by leading evidence, whereas there was no evidence on behalf of the appellant-wife to rebut the evidence of the respondent-husband.

Reliance was placed on Ramchander v. Ananta, [(2015) 11 SCC 539], to underscore that cruelty has not been defined in the Act and the same is to be taken as the behavior by one spouse towards the other. The cruelty can be physical or mental, but such cruelty must be proved.

Consequently, the bench held that there was no evidence led by the appellant-wife to prove the averments made in the written statement. Thus, it opined in the absence thereof, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Family Court suffer from any patent illegality or perversity.

Title: XXXXX v. XXXX [FAO-913-2025]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 101