The Allahabad High Court has observed that if courts interpret minor conflicts in a marital relationship as “cruelty” within the framework of divorce law, numerous marriages might be at risk of dissolution, even in the absence of actual cruelty from either spouse.
This observation was made by a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad. The bench, while hearing a divorce plea filed by Rohit Chaturvedi, directed the judicial separation of the estranged couple instead of directly granting the plea for divorce.
The divorce case, originally dismissed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the additional principal judge (family court), Ghaziabad, was challenged by Rohit Chaturvedi. The appellant sought divorce, alleging cruelty by his wife, Neha Chaturvedi, with whom he had entered into matrimony in 2013.
In the appeal under section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, Rohit contended that his wife had refused to consummate their marriage, engaged in altercations with his parents, incited a mob against him by falsely labelling him a thief, and filed a dowry case. Although the couple cohabited until July 2014, they ceased living together thereafter. The wife counterclaimed, accusing Rohit of an extramarital relationship with his sister-in-law. The family court rejected the divorce plea, prompting Rohit to escalate the matter to the high court.
The high court emphasized that deeming minor incidents and disputes as “cruelty” could lead to the dissolution of many marriages. To qualify as marital cruelty, the act must be sufficiently grave to impede reconciliation efforts. The court also noted that the wife’s allegation of an affair was solely based on Rohit sharing a room with his sister-in-law and her children, deeming it insufficient to infer an illicit relationship.
Acknowledging serious disputes between the spouses, the absence of marital consummation, and limited prospects for reconciliation, the court opted for judicial separation instead of an outright dissolution of the marriage. Consequently, the court granted a decree of judicial separation to the appellant-husband.