Expecting Husband To Leave Elderly Mother, Sister With Unsound Mind Unattended Amounts To Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Divorce

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a wife's plea challenging the divorce order granted to the couple under the Hindu Marriage Act, observing that expecting her husband to leave his aged mother of around 75 years, and his sister of unsound mind unattended, amounted to "cruelty."

Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "It needs no reiteration that when one enters into matrimony, one surrenders a part of one's absolute freedom for the good of both and for the harmonious life of two alongwith their children (if any). Therefore, one should adjust his/her life pattern in the light of his/her marital obligations."

The Court said that the expectation of the appellant that the husband should live with her after leaving his old aged mother and un-sound mind sister; is considered in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Narendra v. K. Meena, [2016(4) RCR (Civil) 706], the same would indeed constitute an “act of cruelty”.

The Court was hearing an appeal of a woman filed against the divorce granted to a couple married in 1999, by a Family Court in Haryana in 2019. The divorce plea was filed by the husband in 2016, on the grounds of "cruelty."

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the woman along with her two daughters had been residing separately from husband since 2016. 

"From the evidence on record, it can be easily discerned that the appellant (woman) did not want to reside with the old mother and un-married sister of un-sound mind, of the respondent-husband," said the Court.

It is clearly borne out from the record that the respondent was serving his old mother and un-sound mind sister and the appellant was expecting the husband to leave them unattended, it added.

Speaking for the bench Justice Harsh Bunger said, "it is a fact that the spouses have separated since 2016 and they have not been able to re-unite and lead a normal matrimonial life all these years. It has come on record that the appellant was not ready to reside with her old mother-in-law and unsound mind sister-in- law."

The Court remarked, "There is every reason, therefore, to assume that their matrimonial relationship is emotionally dead."

The appellant-wife wants to live separately for her own reasons, otherwise she could have tried to adjust with the respondent-husband, the judge said.

Wife Does Not Seem To Be Interested In Conjugal Bliss

The bench also noted that the woman has joined a spiritual group called 'Braham Kumari' with the foundation to maintain celibacy.

"As a circumstance to hold that the appellant does not seem to be interested in any conjugal bliss. It is well settled and as observed in the case of Samar Ghosh (), unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason, may amount to mental cruelty," the bench observed.

In the light of the above the Court opined that, "it is evident that the marriage between the parties has failed and the matrimonial alliance is beyond repair. If the decree of divorce is set aside that would amount to compelling them to further live together in complete disharmony, mental stress and strain, which in turn will amount to perpetuating cruelty."

Furthermore, while upholding the divorce, the Court, noted that the family court had not granted any alimony to the woman. 

It said that Section 25 of the 1955 Act itself envisages that the wife can initiate proceedings for the grant of permanent alimony even after the decree of divorce. Therefore, the Court does not become functus officio with the passing of the decree and continues to have jurisdiction to award alimony even thereafter.

Therefore, while keeping it open for the wife to claim permanent alimony, the Court directed her husband to pay Rs.5 lakh towards interim permanent alimony to her within three months. 

Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Devender Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 145

Title: XXX v. XXX