The Fact That Two Persons Cannot Imagine A Life Together Any More Should Be Seen As Sufficient Ground To Dissolve Marriage: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court observed that the fact that two persons cannot imagine a life together any more should be seen as sufficient ground to dissolve the marriage.
The Court said that that a party being held to the “stranglehold” of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) was a dated approach and no longer in sync with the times.
A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarsini observed, “What may be seen as mental cruelty by one may be well perceived as behaviour which is irritating or unwelcome, but not cruel. The fact that two persons cannot imagine a life together any more should be seen as sufficient ground to dissolve the marriage and grant a decree of divorce. A party being held to the stranglehold of Section 13(1) of the Act is a dated approach and one that is no longer in sync with the times. A petition for divorce should not only be tethered to the grounds under Section 13(1) of the Act. Section 13(1) of the Act may be seen as supplementing a case for divorce where the marriage has otherwise become unworkable.”
Advocate G Nagesh represented the petitioner, while Advocate N Lalitha Reddy appeared for the respondent.
The wife had filed several criminal complaints against her husband including accusations under Section 498-A of the IPC. During the same time, the husband’s petition for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the HMA on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was dismissed by the trial court.
The trial court dismissed the husband’s petition on the grounds of insufficient evidence of cruelty and desertion. The husband argued that the wife’s actions constituted mental and physical cruelty.
The High Court noted that the wife had filed multiple criminal proceedings against the husband, including criminal cases under Section 498-A of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, several of these cases were dismissed which cast doubt on the wife’s allegations.
“The concept of cruelty is social milieu-dependent where the upbringing, level of education, sensitivity, financial position, social status, religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds of the parties would set the standard of whether the conduct complained of would be unmitigated cruel behaviour. The degree of tolerance to the conduct complained of would also depend on the outlook, experience and exposure of the complainant as well as the perpetrator,” the Court remarked.
The Bench pointed out that the law must move with the times as marriage was more of a voluntary bond these days and less of a social compulsion.
The Court further stated that the “obliteration of marital ties” was for the married couples to assess and resolve in the best way they think fit. The Court noted that it had a limited role in “the whole affair and should not act as an executioner (in the sense of a hangman) or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband, particularly where the meeting of minds between them has irrevocably ended. It is certainly not the Court’s work to ferret out faultlines in the evidence in negation of cruelty in an altruistic zeal for preserving the marriage. This kind of exercise is unwarranted and pointless.”
Consequently, the Court held, “We have no doubt that the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and of the marriage having broken down beyond repair. There is no chance of the parties resuming their matrimonial life.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: N v. A