Routine Marital Bickering Is Not 'Cruelty', Stable Relationships Require Patience And Adjustment: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce

The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that bickering between husband and wife was common, especially in the initial days of marriage. The court added that if such bickering was projected as cruelty, most marriages would have to be dissolved. The court highlighted that a stable relationship required patience and adjustments.

“The bickering that takes place between a husband and wife and more particularly during the initial stage of marriage is a common phenomenon that invariably takes place in every marriage relationship. If the same is attempted to be projected as cruelty, most of the marriages will have to be dissolved. A stable relationship of a husband and wife is a long drawn process that requires patience and lot of adjustment,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband challenging an order of the family court by which the divorce petition filed by the husband was dismissed and the application filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed.

The husband's case was that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on July 8 2019 as per Hindu rites and customs and they stayed together in the matrimonial home for a short period. The husband argued that in the short period, the wife started talking ill about him ad disrespected his parents and went to her parental home. He argued that when a child was born to the couple, the wife did not invite the husband to her parental home to visit the child.

The wife, on the other hand, submitted that she was treated with cruelty and the husband had close relationship with his brother's wife. It was submitted that the husband did not visit the hospital or the parental home after the birth of the child. It was further submitted that when the wife's parents took her and the child to the matrimonial home, neither the husband or his parents spoke anything. The wife thus argued that she was forced to move out of the matrimonial home. However, she informed that she wished to live with the husband and sought for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.

The court primarily objected to a single appeal being filed against the order of rejecting divorce and granting restitution of conjugal rights. Though the husband submitted that the family court had passed a common order which is why a single appeal was filed, the court noted that a separate appeal should have been filed.

“Therefore, even though a common judgment has been passed by the family Court, considering the fact that the issues involved were common and it was between the same parties, appeal must be filed independently as against the dismissal of the divorce petition and allowing counter claim by rejecting the relief of restitution of conjugal rights,” the court said.

The court thus confined its discussion with respect to the dismissal of the divorce petition. The court noted that the only allegation of cruelty that was raised by the husband was that the wife continued to live with her parents and did not join with the husband.

The court noted that the family court had rendered a finding that the husband had not made out a case for cruelty and the finding was perfectly in order. The court noted that the couple had hardly lived together and the initial bickering in the marriage was not properly sorted out.

The court agreed with the family court that the husband had not made out a case for cruelty, either physical or mental and thus held that the family court had rightly dismissed the divorce petition. Noting that no interference was warranted, the court dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: M/s.A.Mohan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.S.Premkumar

Case Title: R v P

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 137

Case No: CMA.(MD)No.899 of 2023