Courts Should Not Interfere In Private Marital Conduct Between Spouses: Allahabad HC While Setting Aside Divorce Granted On Grounds Of ‘Cruelty’
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that personal preferences and conduct within the privacy of a marriage should not be subject to judicial scrutiny unless they involve extreme cruelty or depravity.
The Court made the observation while dealing with an appeal by a woman challenging a family court’s decision to grant her husband a divorce.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, "How parties to a marriage may conduct themselves in the privacy of their relationship that must be maintained within the boundaries of the intensely personal relationship between two individuals is not for the Courts to rule upon."
The case centered on the husband’s claims of cruelty, which he presented as grounds for divorce shortly after the couple’s marriage in 1999. Although the couple separated within a year of marrying, the husband’s divorce petition was filed just 11 months into the marriage and subsequently granted in 2015 by a family court.
During the appeal, Advocate Gopal Misra, appearing for the wife, argued that under the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorce petition cannot be filed within the first year of marriage, except under conditions of "extreme hardship" or "extreme depravity." Advocates Ajit Kumar and Syed Irfan Ali appeared for the husband.
The Court agreed, clarifying that any attempt to dissolve a marriage within one year requires a specific application for permission, which was not submitted in this case. The Court reasoned that a cause of action for divorce could not be retroactively validated merely by the passage of time.
The Court further observed that issues of intimate compatibility and personal preferences should generally remain within the private domain of a marriage. “What personal likes, preferences, and habits a party to a marriage may feel inclined to practise and indulge in, within the confines of that relationship, is not for the Court to explore or examine unless they involve acts of extreme cruelty and/or depravity....We leave it to the better judgment of the parties to a marriage to find appropriate ways to adjust and conduct themselves in such situations. Suffice to note, merely because the respondent may have different behavioural preferences to act in intimate moments than those desired by the appellant, may remain an issue that may be best resolved by the parties to the marriage without any intervention being ever offered by the Court of law,” it stated.
The Bench also scrutinized the family court's interpretation of "cruelty," which it found to be flawed. The family court had based its decision partly on the wife's conduct during legal proceedings, noting that she had initiated multiple cases against her husband. The Court dismissed this reasoning, stating that a party's efforts to contest or resist a divorce cannot be construed as cruelty.
Noting that the wife had been “dragged into needless litigation,” the Court allowed her appeal and reversed the family court’s ruling. "We find no ground is made out to grant divorce. At the same time, we also find that the appellant has been dragged into needless litigation that too wholly prematurely, i.e., before the respondent earned a cause of action. Even today the respondent is not willing to revive his matrimonial relationship with the appellant," the Court said.
Additionally, it imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the husband, to be deducted from a deposit of Rs. 2,50,000 that he had placed in court as part of compliance with the lower court’s order. The Court also ordered that any outstanding maintenance owed to the wife be deducted from the deposited amount, with the remainder returned to the husband after all dues are cleared.
"...appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.3.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in Case No. 186 of 2013 is set aside, with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. We are informed that the respondent had deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- before the learned Court below in compliance to the impugned judgment and order. Let costs awarded be paid therefrom. The balance amount together with accrued interest be refunded to the respondent, after ensuring that all recoveries outstanding against the respondent towards maintenance amount awarded to the appellant are satisfied," the Court said.
Cause Title: XYZ v. ABC [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:170550-DB]
Click here to read/download the Order
