The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the divorce decree granted to the husband on the grounds of cruelty, noting that the wife insulted and pressured him to separate from his family.
The Family Court had granted the divorce, citing the wife’s cruelty in pressuring the husband to live apart from his family while also insulting and abusing him over the matter. Although the wife and her father were acquitted in the criminal case related to offenses under Sections 306 read with 34 of the IPC, the husband successfully established a case for divorce on the grounds 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 Family Court’s decision to grant a divorce, wherein the respondent-husband’s petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed, dissolving the marriage on the grounds of cruelty.
The husband argued that after their marriage in 2018, his wife began pressuring him to live separately from his family and frequently used offensive language against him.
It was contended that the wife harassed her in-laws by filing criminal complaints, which allegedly led to her father-in-law’s suicide. However, both she and her father were acquitted in the case.
The counsel representing the appellant-wife argued that the respondent-husband had falsely implicated her and her father in a criminal case under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was further claimed that the husband and his family had been demanding dowry, subjecting her to mental harassment, and physically assaulting her.
After considering the arguments, the Court noted that although the appellant-wife and her father were acquitted in the criminal case registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC concerning the suicide of the respondent-husband’s father, the wife had failed to appear as a witness to counter the evidence presented by the husband.
The Court concluded that the respondent-husband had successfully proven the allegations of cruelty made in the divorce petition by providing evidence, while the appellant-wife did not present any evidence to refute his claims.
The Court relied on Ramchander v. Ananta, [(2015) 11 SCC 539], emphasizing that cruelty is not explicitly defined under the Act and should be understood as one spouse’s behavior toward the other. Cruelty may be physical or mental, but it must be established with evidence.
As a result, the bench observed that the appellant-wife had not presented any evidence to substantiate the claims made in her written statement. Therefore, it held that, in the absence of such evidence, the findings of the Family Court could not be considered patently illegal or perverse.