'Trivial Irritation' In Marriage Does Not Amount To Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Dismissing a divorce plea, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that ordinary marital disagreements, trivial irritations, or routine quarrels do not constitute "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa said, "Cruelty, within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act, must be of such a nature as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the aggrieved spouse that it is harmful or injurious to live with each other. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels or normal wear and tear does not amount to cruelty. In the present case, no such conduct on the part of the respondent-husband has been established that would amount to mental or physical cruelty under the law."

Speaking for the bench Justice Nalwa said, It is further pertinent to mention here that the legal principle enshrined under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act mandates that any relief under the Act shall be granted only when the court is satisfied that the wife or the husband is not taking advantage of his or her wrong or disability, added the Court.

The Court observed that, legislative intent behind this is to grant relief to those who approach the Court with clean hands and have not contributed themselves to the breakdown of the marriage.

The bench was hearing plea of a wife challenging order of family Court whereby the Court had dismissed her divorce plea on ground of mental and physical cruelty.

Taking into consideration the already appended exhibits, the Family Court held that the allegations against the respondent-husband for demanding dowry including the car etc. were apparently false and concocted.

With regard to the allegation of inflicting injury upon the appellant-wife, the Family Court took into consideration her cross-examination and the appellant-wife admitted during her cross examination that she had a squint in her eyes since childhood.

The wife had admitted that her left eye's sight was weak since childhood. The Family Court found that medical records, which pertain to the treatment which the appellant-wife received from AIIMS, Delhi, clearly indicated that the appellant-wife was suffering from an eye problem since childhood and the respondent-husband had arranged for her treatment at AIIMS, Delhi.

The allegations levelled by the appellant-wife that she was subjected to severe beatings resulting in a fracture of the nose bone and injuries on lips and that she was treated at Civil Hospital, Panipat, were considered by the Family Court, however, the appellant-wife failed to produce any medical evidence to substantiate that she was treated for such

After hearing the submissions, the bench said that, "It is a well established legal principle that, for conduct to amount to cruelty, the alleging party must clearly demonstrate that the behaviour of the other party has been such that continued cohabitation is no longer reasonably possible."

The Court opined that the acts complained of must be of such a nature that they lead to the logical and reasonable conclusion that reconciliation between the parties is not feasible.

"Cruelty may be physical harm, mental distress or both. While there is no fixed formula to quantify cruelty, each case must be assessed individually, with due regard to the seriousness and context of allegations", it added.

The bench further said that the legislative intent behind  Section 23(1)(a) of the Act is to grant relief to those who approach the Court with clean hands and have not contributed themselves to the breakdown of the marriage.

In the case in hand, the appellant-wife does not appear to be above reproach and the material on record would suggest that she has failed to make a bona fide case of cruelty, said the Court.

Stating that, a party seeking divorce cannot be permitted to benefit from their own misconduct or use it a basis to claim relief, the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.

Title: XXX v. XXX [FAO-M No. 312 of 2018]