Depriving Spouse Of Being On Facebook, Instagram; Damaging Partner's Reputation/ Social Standing May Amount To Cruelty: Telangana HC

Extending this principle to modern contexts, a bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini added that it might not be too far-fetched to say that depriving a spouse of being on Facebook and Instagram may also amount to cruelty.

These observations were made by the bench while allowing a husband's appeal to seek a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court also observed 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 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,” the Division bench noted.

Read more about the Court's observations here: Court Is Neither Counsellor Nor Executioner To Compel Parties To Continue With 'Unworkable Marriage': Telangana High Court

The Court also opined that mental cruelty cannot be defined within a straightjacket formula as what may be seen as mental cruelty by one may be well perceived as behaviour which is irritating or unwelcome but not cruel.

“The fact that two persons cannot imagine a life together any more should be seen as sufficient ground to dissolve the marriage and grant a decree of divorce,” the Court said.

The case involved a couple who got married in 2010. Severe marital discord arose shortly after the wedding. The wife left the matrimonial home in 2011 and filed five criminal cases against her husband, including allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment under Section 498A IPC.

The wife came to live with the appellant for a few days in May 2015 but left the appellant's home soon. Afterwards, she filed more criminal cases against the appellant. The husband was acquitted in some of these cases.

The Trial Court in November 2021 dismissed the appellant's petition for divorce on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish a case of cruelty for grant of divorce.

Challenging the trial court's order and judgment, the appellant-husband moved to the High Court, contending that his wife had caused physical and mental cruelty to the appellant by filing one criminal case after another against the appellant.

His counsel further submitted that the respondent-wife had deserted the appellant by leaving the matrimonial home in 2011 and that the respondent subsequently came to live with the appellant in May 2015, only for a few days, after which the respondent filed two more criminal cases.

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.

Against this backdrop, the court allowed the husband's appeal, noting that since the very foundation of the marriage has fallen apart, the parties can't be forced to reconcile and live together as husband and wife.

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) 110

Click Here To Read/Download Order