Wife Forcing Husband To Live In A Separate Room Amounts To Cruelty: Allahabad HC Grants Divorce To Husband
|The Allahabad High Court recently granted a divorce to a husband, ruling that a wife’s refusal to cohabit and forcing her husband to live in a separate room amounts to cruelty, depriving him of his conjugal rights.
"Cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship, and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse impact on his mental and physical well-being and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty," the Court observed.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this observation while hearing an appeal from a man seeking divorce.
The husband claimed that after just 4-5 months of marriage, his wife began harassing him, forcing him to live in a separate room and threatening suicide and criminal cases if he entered her room.
The Court noted that cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship. By forcing her husband to live separately, the wife deprived him of his conjugal rights, which adversely impacted his mental and physical well-being. The Bench also emphasized that this amounted to both physical and mental cruelty, warranting the dissolution of the marriage.
The couple got married in 2016, with this being the first marriage for the woman and the second for the man. By 2018, the husband had moved the family court for divorce, citing his wife’s cruel behavior and refusal to perform her matrimonial obligations since April 2017. The Family Court had initially ruled against the husband, finding that he had not provided detailed evidence of his wife’s threats.
However, the Court overturned the Family Court's order, noting that the wife had not challenged the husband’s allegations by filing a written statement, effectively admitting them by implication.
The Bench criticized the Family Court for disregarding the testimony of the husband’s father, pointing out that in matrimonial disputes, family members are often the most natural witnesses to events occurring within the household. "One of the reasons mentioned by the Family Court for dismissing the suit is that the plaintiff has not stated as to whether the defendant has gone away from her home. When the plaintiff has categorically stated that the defendant did not allow him to enter her room and she declined cohabitation with the plaintiff and did not perform her matrimonial obligations, it was apparent that the defendant had abandoned the matrimonial relationship between herself and the plaintiff and the fact of the defendant residing in the plaintiff’s house or away from it is not of any significance," the Court said.
The Division Bench also dismissed the trial court's reasoning that the man's previous marriage disputes negatively impacted his credibility, emphasizing that the earlier marriage had ended in mutual consent without allegations against him.
The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove cruelty, which was a valid ground for divorce. While the Court acknowledged that the wife’s desertion could also have been a ground for divorce, it refrained from addressing this issue, focusing solely on the established cruelty.
"...we are of the considered view that there was sufficient evidence to prove the grounds of cruelty pleaded by the plaintiff-appellant for grant of a decree of divorce the plaintiff has successfully proved by his ex-parte evidence that the defendant was treating him with cruelty. Although the ground of the plaintiff’s desertion by the defendant is also established from the material available on record, since the Family Court did not frame any issue on this point, and the ground of cruelty alone is sufficient for allowing the appeal, there is no need go into this question in this appeal," the Court said.
Therefore, the Court ruled in favour of the husband, dissolving the marriage and granting the divorce.
Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ [Neutral Citation No.: 2024:AHC-LKO:57446-DB]
Appearance:-
Appellant: Advocate Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Click here to read/download the Order