Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Divorce, Finding Wife’s Insistence On Staying In Durg For Studies And Work Amounted To Cruelty

The parties married on 1 January 2015 and had a son, who lives with the wife.

The husband alleged that the wife chose to pursue studies and employment in Durg and refused to reside with him in Dongargarh, despite his proposals that she commute between the two places.

The wife denied the allegations, said the husband had driven her out, and stated that she was willing to continue the marriage.

The Family Court found cruelty proved, but not desertion, and granted the husband a divorce.

The wife appealed.

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

In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Supreme Court held that cruelty may be mental or physical, that the cumulative effect of the parties’ conduct must be assessed, and that conduct may constitute cruelty where it makes continued cohabitation intolerable.

The Court also relied on Narendra v. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455, concerning persistent conduct that causes mental distress to a spouse; it quoted the Supreme Court’s conclusion that persistent efforts to compel a husband to separate from his family, without justifiable reason, may amount to cruelty.

The Court considered the wife’s preference to study and work in Durg, her refusal to reside with the husband in Dongargarh, and the husband’s asserted attempts to facilitate her studies and employment while maintaining the household.

It found his request that she commute between the towns reasonable and concluded that her continued refusal to live with him and discharge what the Court viewed as matrimonial responsibilities, including responsibilities toward his mother, amounted to mental cruelty.

Applying the cumulative-conduct approach in Samar Ghosh, the Court upheld the Family Court’s finding under Section 13(1)(ia).

It expressly declined to comment on the allegation of an extramarital relationship.

It affirmed the divorce decree dated 3 August 2024; there was no order as to costs.