Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Divorce Denial: Husband’s Objections To Wife’s Hairstyle And Clothes Didn’t Prove Cruelty, Court Finds

The parties married in May 2007.

The husband sought divorce alleging, among other things, that the wife refused household responsibilities, underwent an abortion without his consent, left the matrimonial home, and subjected him to cruelty.

The wife denied those allegations and alleged that the husband had physically and mentally abused her and left her at her parental home on 24 April 2019.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition.

The husband appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 permits divorce where a spouse has, after solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.

Mental cruelty requires conduct causing such mental pain and suffering that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together; ordinary marital disagreements, isolated incidents, and the complaining spouse’s subjective sensitivity are insufficient.

The Court relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, for illustrative factors in assessing mental cruelty;

V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337, for the standard of conduct making cohabitation unreasonable; and

Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, for distinguishing cruelty from ordinary wear and tear of married life.

The Court found that complaints and legal proceedings between the parties showed marital discord but did not, by themselves, establish cruelty.

The husband’s principal allegations concerned the wife’s refusal to perform household work, hairstyle, and choice of clothing; the Court considered these allegations insufficient to meet the legal threshold for mental cruelty.

It also noted that the husband had been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC in proceedings arising from an assault on the wife, and that his own witness described the parties’ disputes as quarrels and differences.

The evidence did not show conduct by the wife of such nature or degree that continued matrimonial life could not reasonably be expected.

It dismissed the appeal, affirmed the Family Court’s judgment and decree, and directed the husband to bear the appeal costs.