- November 30, 2024
‘Quarrels Alone Don’t Prove Mental Cruelty’: Allahabad High Court Denies Divorce – News18
Last Updated:
The court held that the husband had failed to demonstrate that he could no longer live with his wife due to acute emotional distress
The court concluded that the husband had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the dissolution of the marriage and, accordingly, dismissed the husband’s appeal.
(File image/Getty)
The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a husband’s plea for divorce, stating that allegations of his wife quarrelling without reason were insufficient to establish the mental pain, agony, and suffering required to justify the dissolution of marriage.
The court held that the husband had failed to demonstrate that he could no longer live with his wife due to acute emotional distress.
The case involved a husband’s appeal against a family court’s rejection of his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant, a government doctor, sought to divorce his wife, citing both mental and physical cruelty. He claimed that their marriage, which took place in 2015, was conducted under duress, and after the wedding, he faced numerous accusations from his wife, including defamatory claims of immoral conduct. The husband also alleged physical abuse and blackmail, accusing his wife of manipulating images to extort him.
However, the High Court found that the husband’s claims were not substantial enough to meet the legal threshold for cruelty.
A bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla stated that the appellant’s allegations were nothing more than the “normal wear and tear in married life”. The court emphasised that accusations of quarrelling without reason and other minor disputes do not qualify as mental cruelty.
“The allegations that she was quarrelling with him without any reason, in the considered view of this Court, are not sufficient to form an opinion that the appellant/husband is undergoing acute mental pain, agony, suffering, disappointment and frustration and therefore it is not possible for him to live in the company of the respondent/wife,” said the bench.
The appellant’s plea was further undermined as the court found that his allegations were vague and lacked the necessary evidence to prove that his wife’s actions caused him severe mental anguish. The court noted that his complaints, such as being restricted from meeting his parents and friends, and the accusation of his wife lodging frivolous police complaints, were not serious enough to constitute cruelty.
“The couple lived together for around six years and the appellant-husband could not bring on record specific instances of mental harassment to enable this Court to adjudicate the case of mental cruelty in favour of the appellant/husband,” said the court.
The High Court also took issue with the appellant’s failure to prove that the complaints filed by his wife were false or malicious, which is a critical component in proving cruelty under the law.
The court concluded that the husband had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the dissolution of the marriage and, accordingly, dismissed the husband’s appeal.
