Mere Family Squabble Cannot Be Called 'Cruelty' For Dissolution Of Hindu Marriage: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that mere family squabble cannot be called as an act of cruelty for the dissolution of marriage of a Hindu Marriage.
The Court reiterated that while administering family law, Courts are not required to imagine an ideal family or ideal family relations to judge whether the act complained is one that may amount to cruelty.
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, “What may have occurred may therefore, continue to be described as a family squabble which may never acquire the degree or status of an act of cruelty as may lead to dissolution of a Hindu marriage.”
Advocate Abhinav Gaur appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Pawan Singh Pundir represented the respondent.
The trial court dissolved the marriage between the parties after accepting the plea of cruelty as alleged by the husband. The wife challenged the same under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984.
The husband alleged that the wife had offered “very cruel behavior” and assaulted her mother-in-law along with some other close relatives on a day when other members of the family of the husband were not at home to attend the thirteenth-day rites of another close relative.
On the other hand, the wife submitted that the trial court erred in travelling beyond the plaint case and further erred in relying on unreliable oral evidence, to infer that the wife had offered cruel behaviour towards the husband.
The High Court pointed out that an irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not available as a statutory ground to dissolve a Hindu marriage.
“Then, as to all other acts of cruelty alleged, learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that those were never pleaded as a fact, in the plaint,” the Court stated.
“In absence of that opportunity granted to the appellant, it never became open to the respondent to rely on such fact occurrences - by introducing them at the stage of oral evidence. In absence of those essential facts being pleaded they could never be treated as proven,” the Court explained.
The Bench stated that the wife lodging a criminal case against the husband per se does not amount to cruelty.
“Unless proven facts are such as may lead the Courts to the inference that the aggrieved parties are entitled to construe the act of cruelty committed on them, the Courts may not impose their own morality or opinion as to the conduct that may have been offered by the parties in the situation in which they existed,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court found no ground of cruelty existing to dissolve the marriage between parties and therefore, set aside the order of the trial court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: K v. R (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:154193-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Abhinav Gaur and Vibhu Rai
Respondent: Advocates Pawan Singh Pundir, Rakesh Ojha and Sukram Pal
