Court says ordinary matrimonial discord, family friction and separate residence while husband worked abroad did not amount to cruelty or desertion under Hindu Marriage Act
The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench has dismissed two appeals filed by a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, while confirming a Family Court order granting restitution of conjugal rights in favour of his wife.
A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi held that the husband failed to prove that the wife’s conduct amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or that she had deserted him under Section 13(1)(ib). The Court said the allegations raised by the husband — including disputes over household chores, travel arrangements, communication with his parents, naming of the child and attendance at family functions — were at best ordinary wear and tear of married life.
The couple had married in 2015 and had a female child in 2016. According to the husband, the relationship became strained soon after marriage due to quarrels and the wife’s alleged interference in his relationship with his parents. He also claimed that after he left for Germany for employment, the wife refused to return to the matrimonial home and ignored repeated requests for reunion.
The wife denied the allegations and maintained that she was always willing to live with the husband. She said the husband left for Germany without taking her and the child with him and that she had even approached the police seeking reunion. She also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Family Court had dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and allowed the wife’s petition. Upholding that decision, the High Court said the evidence did not show any sustained or grave conduct on the part of the wife that could amount to mental cruelty. The Bench noted that the parties had lived together peacefully for about seven months in Bangalore, and that the disputes largely revolved around family friction involving the husband’s parents.
On the question of desertion, the Court observed that mere stay at the parental home, especially while the husband was abroad and the wife was caring for the minor child, could not automatically be treated as desertion. The Court found no proof of an intention on the wife’s part to permanently end cohabitation. Instead, the record showed continued communication and attempts at reconciliation.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents including Dr. N.G. Dastane, J.L. Nanda, Samar Ghosh and Vishwanath Agrawal, the Bench reiterated that trivial irritations, petty quarrels and normal matrimonial discord cannot be treated as cruelty unless the conduct is grave, persistent and weighty enough to make cohabitation unreasonable.
The Court also declined to interfere with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, holding that the wife had consistently expressed willingness to resume matrimonial life and that no perversity or illegality was shown in the Family Court’s findings.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both appeals and confirmed the Family Court’s common order. It also left open independent disputes regarding jewels and household articles to be decided in appropriate pending proceedings.
Bottom Line :
Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion - Ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life, petty quarrels and family friction involving in-laws do not amount to cruelty unless conduct is grave and weighty - Wife staying at parental home while husband was abroad and her consistent willingness to resume cohabitation do not establish desertion - Decree for restitution of conjugal rights rightly confirmed.
Statutory provision(s): Section 13(1)(ia), Section 13(1)(ib), Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Ranjith v. Rukmani, (Madras)(DB)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987674
