Complete Denial Of Company To Spouse, Without Any Justifiable Reason, Itself Amounts To Cruelty: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court  held that the complete denial of company to the spouse, without any justifiable reason, may itself amount to cruelty under Hindu marriage law.

The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh emphasized that such an act undermines the sacramental nature of Hindu marriage, reducing it to a mere social contract devoid of its soul and spirit.

"The complete denial of company to ones spouse, without any justifiable reason, may itself amount to cruelty. It is not cohabitation on physical intimacy that may dictate the definition of cruelty. We are aware that that test if imported may be regressive and in any case outdated. At the same time, any person who enters into matrimonial relationship, does undertake a social and personal obligation to enjoy and share his / her company with their chosen spouse. A spouse who out of choice completely deprives the other of his / her company, for no rhyme or reason may be seen to have committed cruelty when that conduct (continuous and unabated over years) is seen through the eyes of other spouse," the Bench said. 

The case involved a marriage solemnized in 1989, followed by the birth of a child in 1991. The relationship between the couple, however, was fraught with difficulties. The couple first separated a few years after marriage but reconciled for a brief period before separating again in 1999. Following another attempt at reconciliation, they finally parted ways in 2001 and have been living separately since then. The wife approached the High Court, challenging the divorce decree granted by the Judge of the Family Court in Jhansi.

The Court observed that the marriage had become untenable due to the numerous allegations and counter-allegations exchanged between the parties. The husband had accused the wife of cruelty, specifically citing her alleged role in his mother's suicide, a claim that significantly strained their relationship and led to their prolonged separation.

The Court underscored the sanctity of Hindu marriage, describing it as more than a social contract; it is a sacrament, a sacred bond that should not be lightly broken. The Court also observed that when one partner abandons the other without a valid reason, it effectively kills the spirit of the marriage, leaving only its external form intact. Such an abandonment, the Court ruled, constitutes cruelty toward the spouse who has been left alone.

“A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not just a social contract where one partner abandons the other without reason or just cause or existing or valid circumstance necessitating that conduct, the sacrament loses its soul and spirit, though it may continue to hold its external form and body. Thus to a third party, the form may be visible and they may continue to visualize the marriage as existing at the same time to the spouse the sacrament may remain dead. That death of the spirit and soul of a Hindu marriage may constitute cruelty to the spouse who may be thus left alone devoid of not only physical company but also completely deprived of the company of their spouse, at all planes of human existence,” the Court remarked.

The Court relied on several key judgments to define and interpret the concept of cruelty within the context of Hindu marriage. Citing the landmark Supreme Court case N.G. Dastane (DR) v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326, the Court noted that cruelty must be of such a nature that it causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the spouse that living in the shared household would be detrimental to their life, limb, or health. It further emphasized that the standard for cruelty is not based on the expectations of an ideal husband or wife, as an ideal couple would not find themselves before a matrimonial court.

Additionally, the Court referred to Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, (1988) 1 SCC 105, where the Supreme Court included 'willful conduct' as part of the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In another referenced case, Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002), 5 SCC 706, the Apex Court highlighted that mental cruelty, though difficult to establish through direct evidence, can be inferred from the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances presented before the court.

The Division Bench also relied on the judgment in Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, (2023) SCC Online SC 1127, where the Supreme Court held that the word 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has no fixed meaning and must be applied contextually. The Court has wide discretion in determining what constitutes cruelty, as it can vary from case to case.

The Court upheld the allegations of cruelty against the appellant-wife. It noted that she had deserted her matrimonial home without a valid reason and refused to return despite the husband's best efforts to reconcile. The allegations of dowry demands and domestic violence raised by the wife were not substantiated before the Family Court, further weakening her case.

The Court found that the complete denial of company by one spouse to another, without any justifiable reason, over a continuous and extended period, amounts to cruelty. The Court also observed that the wife's behavior, over the last 23 years, demonstrated a clear intention not to revive the matrimonial relationship. "In view of the above, decree of divorce granted by learned court below does not warrant any interference by this Court in the facts of this case, cited above," it said. 

In light of these findings, the Court upheld the divorce decree granted by the Family Court. Recognizing the prolonged and irreparable breakdown of the marriage, the court awarded the wife Rs. 5 lakh as permanent alimony.

"In face of marriage between parties being admitted, there is no exceptional circumstance proven by the respondent to deprive the appellant of minimal amount for the sustenance of life and liberty of the appellant with minimal dignity while keeping in mind, the status of the appellant remained as a homemaker with no independent source of income. Accordingly, we peg the amount of permanent alimony at Rs.5,00,000/-. Here the respondent neither appeared nor raised any objection to award of permanent alimony. Marriage between the parties shall remain dissolved in terms of the impugned decree granted by the learned court below. Yet the appellant was entitled to receive Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent towards permanent alimony. That amount we award. It may be paid within a period of three months from today subject to the appellant serving a copy of this judgment on the respondent by Registered Post A.D. If the decreetal amount is not paid within time contemplated by this Court, the same will attract 8% interest from the date of expiry of three months or from the date of knowledge of this judgment, till the date of actual payment," the Court ordered. 

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the Appeal. 

Cause Title: Smt. Abhilasha Shroti v. Rajendra Prasad Shroti [Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:126451-DB]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocates S.N. Pandey, Havaldar Verma, K.K. Tiwari

Respondent: Advocates S.K.Chaturvedi, S.P. Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment