The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife's decision to forgo wearing a 'parda' (veil) in public does not constitute cruelty warranting the dissolution of marriage. Rejecting a man’s plea for divorce on this basis, the court emphasized the importance of evolving societal norms and individual autonomy in marital relationships.

The case involved a couple married in 1990, who lived together intermittently until 1996 before permanently separating. Despite being apart for over two decades, the wife consistently refused to consent to a divorce, leading to prolonged legal disputes.

The husband, an engineer, alleged that his wife’s refusal to observe traditional customs, including wearing a 'parda,' and her independent interactions in society, amounted to mental cruelty. He claimed these actions violated his expectations of a "traditional" wife.

A division bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh found no merit in these claims, noting that the wife’s behavior was consistent with the freedom and autonomy expected in a modern context.

Both parties were educated professionals—the husband an engineer and the wife a government school teacher.

The court underscored that differences in life perspectives and behaviors do not automatically meet the legal definition of cruelty, stressing that personal choices should not become grounds for marital dissolution in a progressive society.

"Difference of perception towards life may give rise to different behaviours by individuals. Such difference of perception and behaviour may be described as cruel by the others by observing the behaviour of another. At the same time, such perceptions are neither absolute nor such as may themselves give rise to allegations of cruelty unless observed and proven facts are such as may be recognized in law to be acts of cruelty," said the division bench.

Allegations of verbal abuse and claims of the wife’s alleged immoral relationship with a third party were dismissed by the court for lack of evidence. It noted that vague and unsubstantiated accusations could not serve as valid grounds for dissolving a marriage. The husband’s claim regarding his wife’s supposed involvement with an individual referred to as 'Punjabi Baba' was unsupported by credible proof and, therefore, legally unsustainable.

The court, however, acknowledged that the couple’s prolonged separation of over 23 years and the wife’s refusal to reconcile amounted to desertion. Addressing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the court observed that such an extended separation inflicted emotional harm on both parties, rendering the continuation of the marriage untenable. It referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines, which recognize long-term separation and lack of cohabitation as elements of mental cruelty.

The court also noted that alimony provisions were unnecessary since both parties were financially independent. Their sole child, now an adult, remained in the wife’s custody, and no additional financial claims were raised.

Allowing the husband’s appeal, the high court overturned a 2004 lower court decision that had rejected his divorce petition. By formally dissolving the marriage, the court brought an end to the decades-long legal dispute.