No Spouse May Be Expected To Continue In A Matrimonial Relationship At Risk Of Malicious Criminal Prosecution: Allahabad HC Grants Divorce To Husband

The Allahabad High Court has granted a man divorce from his estranged wife, emphasizing that no spouse, irrespective of gender, is expected to remain in a matrimonial relationship under the threat of malicious criminal prosecution.

"..legally, no spouse, whether male or female, may be expected to continue in a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution certainly leads to loss of dignity and reputation, besides other consequences that may arise if a person is arrested or tried for the offence alleged," the Court said. 

The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh made these observations while deciding on an appeal where the husband sought divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty.

The couple married in 1992 but faced difficulties within two years, leading the wife to leave the matrimonial home in 1995 and move in with her parents. Despite efforts by the husband to reconcile, the wife remained distant, prompting the husband to file for divorce in 1999. The family court, however, dismissed his plea and ordered the restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife.

Subsequently, the wife filed a criminal case against her husband, accusing him of cruelty and dowry harassment under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband, maintaining that the allegations were false, appealed to the High Court in 2010 after the family court’s orders.

The Division Bench noted the testimony of the wife’s brother, who confirmed that no dowry demand had ever been made by the husband. The Court also observed that the wife’s baseless and reckless allegations against her husband and his family, including minor siblings, constituted extreme cruelty.

The Court further remarked on the long separation between the spouses, highlighting that the wife’s complete denial of companionship without justifiable reason could itself be considered cruelty. The Court clarified that cruelty in a marriage is not solely defined by a lack of cohabitation or physical intimacy, but also by the refusal to share companionship at all levels of human existence.

"The complete denial of company to one’s spouse, without any justifiable reason, may itself amount to cruelty. It is not cohabitation or physical intimacy that may dictate the definition of cruelty. We are aware that that test if strictly applied 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 Court said. 

The Court underscored the sanctity of Hindu marriage as a sacrament, not just a social contract, noting that when one partner abandons the other without cause, it erodes the marriage’s soul and spirit. "That death of the spirit and soul of a Hindu marriage may constitute cruelty to the spouse who may be thus left alone, devoid not only of physical company but also completely deprived of company of their spouse, at all planes of human existence," the Court observed.

Given the 29 years of separation and the wife’s cruel behavior, the Court ruled that continuing the marriage posed a reasonable apprehension of harm to the husband. It criticized the trial court for not considering these aspects when it rejected the husband’s divorce plea.

Conclusively, the Court set aside the family court’s orders, dissolved the marriage, and granted the divorce. "..the marriage between the parties is dissolved. Both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.7.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia, in O.S. No. 57 of 2003 as well as the judgment and order dated 23.7.2010, passed by District Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia in O.S. 286 of 2002 are set aside. On the issue of alimony, the respondent is described to be a government teacher, working in that capacity since 1997 and there are no children born to the parties. No maintenance is claimed, and none is required to be provided in the present facts," the Court said in its order dated August 28. 

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeals. 

Cause Title: X v. Y [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:137694-DB]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocates Samiran Chaterjee, S. Chatterjee

Respondent: Advocate Kumar Sambhav

Click here to read/download the Order