Ranchi: In a significant ruling on a matrimonial dispute, the Jharkhand High Court has held that a wife living separately from her husband under the same roof, maintaining distance in the marital relationship, or allegedly misbehaving with her husband’s family members, by itself, does not constitute mental cruelty sufficient to grant a divorce.
The court observed that allegations of cruelty must be supported by concrete, specific, and credible evidence.
Dismissing the husband’s appeal, the High Court upheld a decision of the Ranchi Family Court, which had earlier rejected his divorce petition.
The court emphasised that ordinary marital discord, minor inconveniences, differences in temperament, or incompatibility between spouses cannot automatically be treated as mental cruelty.
For cruelty to become a valid ground for divorce, it must be of such a serious nature that continued cohabitation becomes reasonably impossible. The burden of proving cruelty lies on the party seeking dissolution of marriage on that ground.
The case involved Dr Mayank and Assistant Professor Reema, who married on July 28, 2011, under the Special Marriage Act and subsequently solemnised their marriage according to Hindu rituals.
However, subsequently, the husband had approached the Ranchi Family Court seeking divorce under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, citing cruelty as the basis for marital dissolution.
The family court dismissed his plea on March 20, 2023, following which he challenged the order before the High Court.
The husband alleged that his wife mistreated his elderly and ailing parents, refused to maintain marital relations, and that the couple had not shared any physical relationship since 2012.
He further claimed that she ran a separate household within the same residence and avoided communication with him. According to him, these circumstances caused him severe mental distress and adversely affected both his studies and professional career.
Denying the allegations, the wife stated that her father had paid Rs 10 lakh at the time of marriage and that further monetary demands were made in the name of the husband’s education.
She also claimed that she had taken loans to support his studies and had looked after her in-laws. The wife had earlier lodged a harassment complaint at Bariatu police station and told the court that she was still willing to live with her husband.
After examining the records and witness testimonies, the High Court found the husband’s allegations to be general and vague. It noted that no specific incidents or substantive evidence had been produced to establish that the wife’s conduct amounted to such grave mental cruelty as to make continuation of the marriage untenable.
On this basis, the division bench declined to interfere with the Family Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.
–IANS
