Wife's Occasional Refusal To Have Physical Relations Not Cruelty To Husband Under Hindu Marriage Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court

In its order passed earlier this week, a Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Ramkumar Choubey also noted that any wife can expect from her husband that he must be caring towards her and their children and honest about conjugal obligations.

With these observations, the division bench dismissed a first appeal filed by a husband challenging the Family Court's decision that had refused to grant him a decree of divorce.

Briefly put, the Appellant (husband) approached the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging an order and judgment of a Family Court in Jabalpur, wherein his divorce plea was dismissed.

The husband argued that he married the respondent in May 2007 and that two sons were born from their wedlock in 2009 and 2019.

He alleged that marital relations were strained from the beginning. According to him, his wife was unwilling to stay with his parents, refused to wear the Mangalsutra, apply Bindi, or follow family traditions and often quarrelled over trivial matters.

The husband further claimed that she even threatened to implicate him and his family in false dowry cases, denied cohabitation and eventually left the matrimonial home with the children and belongings in March last year.

He also alleged that his wife expressed her willingness to return only if he assured her care and maintenance. This, he argued, showed her unwillingness to genuinely reconcile.

However, in its order, the Family Court noted that the appellant-husband had failed to prove that the respondent-wife had deserted him for a period of not less than two years before the presentation of the divorce petition and also failed to prove that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty.

High Court's order

At the outset, the High Court noted that there were no grounds for desertion as the husband had failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of two years' continuous separation from the wife.

Regarding the ground of cruelty, the Court said that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) must be of such a nature that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse.

Taking into account the evidence adduced in the case, the Bench noted that although the husband had claimed several grievances, such as quarrels, the wife's absence during COVID-19, and her conduct at family events, none of these incidents were of such gravity as to amount to cruelty. Instead, they reflected 'ordinary wear and tear of married life'.

Further, regarding the husband's allegations of denial of cohabitation by the wife, the Court made a significant observation:

"The appellant and the respondent were married on 14.05.2007 and lived together till March, 2024 and they have two children, which itself is a proof of well-cohabitation between them. In ordinary wear and tear of married life, occasional refusal to perform marital obligation is not sufficient to attract mental cruelty. To establish such cruelty there must be persistent refusal to have sexual relationship. Therefore, respondent cannot be held responsible for the denial of coitus so as to constitute cruelty".

The Bench also took note of the wife's reply notice, in which she specifically denied the allegations and expressed her willingness to return, subject to assurances of proper care and fidelity. The Court held that such expectations of the wife were reasonable and did not constitute cruelty.

Importantly, the Court observed that the husband had himself sought reconciliation rather than termination of marriage, which showed that he had condoned any alleged past conduct of cruelty.

Against this backdrop, the court did not find it to be a case of cruelty by the wife. It highlighted that the parties had lived together for over 17 years and had two children, which is proof of a well-cohabited relationship between them. 

Lastly, the bench noted that whatever incidents the husband alleged were mere trivial irritations and quarrels between the spouses, which happen in day-to-day life.

Consequently, the Family Court's order was upheld as the bench concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty.