The Allahabad High Court has noted that categorizing minor disagreements within a marriage as "cruelty" under divorce law could potentially lead to the dissolution of many marriages, even in the absence of genuine cruelty from either spouse.

A division bench consisting of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad made this observation while directing the judicial separation of a disconnected couple instead of immediately granting a divorce plea.

The court highlighted that if minor disagreements or incidents were construed as fulfilling the criteria for cruelty, it could potentially lead to the dissolution of marriages where the parties might not have the best relationship but without any actual instances of cruelty being present.

Case Brief -

During the hearing, the bench presided over a divorce plea filed by Rohit Chaturvedi, contesting the decision dated March 17, 2020, issued by the additional principal judge at the family court in Ghaziabad. The Ghaziabad court had rejected the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the husband citing cruelty from his wife as grounds for divorce. The couple had entered into marriage in 2013.

The ongoing first appeal before the high court was filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984. The husband's submission outlined several grievances against his wife, Neha Chaturvedi, citing her refusal to consummate their marriage, conflicts with his parents, an incident where she allegedly incited a mob to pursue him by falsely labeling him a thief, and her purported filing of a dowry case against him. He further asserted that although they lived together until July 2014, they did not cohabit thereafter. Simultaneously, the wife accused the husband of engaging in an improper relationship with his sister-in-law. Subsequent to the family court's denial of the husband's request for divorce, he proceeded to file an appeal before the high court.

The high court emphasized that deeming minor incidents and disputes as "cruelty" could imperil numerous marriages. For an act to qualify as marital cruelty, it must be substantial enough to impede any attempts at reconciliation. The court also noted that the wife had only alleged that her husband was having an affair because he slept in the same room as his sister-in-law and her children. Inferring an illicit relationship on the basis of this aspect alone would not be justified, the court said.

Consequently, the court granted a decree of judicial separation to the appellant-husband.