The Bombay High Court held that suspecting the husband of an affair and denying him a physical relationship amounts to cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In a landmark judgment reinforcing the legal understanding of “cruelty” within marriage, the Bombay High Court has ruled that denial of physical intimacy and continuous suspicion of an extra-marital affair by a spouse amounts to mental cruelty.
The division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale upheld a family court’s divorce decree in favor of a husband, stating that such conduct severely affects marital harmony and emotional well-being.
Background
This is a matrimonial dispute stemming from a marriage that took place on 12th December 2013. The couple lived together for approximately one year, separating on 14th December 2014. Since 2015, multiple rounds of mediation and legal proceedings took place, including efforts by coordinated Benches of the Bombay High Court to reconcile the couple, but all attempts failed.
The matter reached the Bombay High Court by way of an appeal filed by the wife, challenging the 28th November 2019 judgment of Family Court No.3, Pune. The family court had dismissed her petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and had granted the husband’s counterclaim for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the same Act, citing cruelty and desertion.
In April 2015, the couple initially filed a mutual divorce petition, which was later withdrawn by the wife in July 2015. Subsequently, she filed a police complaint against her husband and his family. The wife then filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband responded with a written statement and counterclaim for divorce, alleging cruelty and desertion. The Family Court granted a divorce, leading to this appeal.
The wife also sought Rs. 1,00,000 per month as maintenance for the first time in the appeal, despite no such claim being made in the original petition before the Family Court. Her earlier application for interim maintenance had been rejected, and she had not appealed against that order.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Wife):
The appellant-wife alleged that she was harassed by her in-laws, forced to quit working, and subjected to frequent quarrels over petty issues.
She claimed that the respondent-husband, along with his parents, humiliated her, took away her jewellery (stridhan), and told her to leave the house after a quarrel in August 2024. She initially consented to a mutual divorce due to a job opportunity, but later withdrew her consent, alleging coercion.
Upon returning to her matrimonial home, she was allegedly mistreated again, leading to her father suffering a heart attack. Despite all this, she claimed love and affection for her husband and filed for restitution of conjugal rights.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court: “Wife Not Observing ‘Parda’ Doesn’t Entitle Husband To Divorce”
Respondent (Husband):
The husband, however, denied all allegations and filed a counterclaim for divorce, citing cruelty and desertion.
He alleged that the wife often left home without informing anyone, returned late, mistreated his specially abled sister, and insulted him and his family. He further accused her of refusing physical intimacy after a few months of marriage, being rude to his employees, humiliating him in front of guests, and repeatedly choosing to spend time with her friends over him, including on their anniversary and Valentine’s Day.
He also claimed she made false accusations of infidelity, quarreled frequently, and eventually left for her parental home in December 2014, never to return.
After considering the evidence from both parties, the Family Court found the husband’s allegations of cruelty and desertion to be true, dismissed the wife’s petition for restitution, and granted the husband a decree of divorce.
High Court’s Judgment
The Bombay High Court, after a thorough examination of the Family Court’s judgment, upheld the decree of divorce granted to the husband and dismissed the wife’s appeal. The Court noted that the Family Court had meticulously appreciated the evidence and rightly concluded that the wife’s claims lacked credibility.
The wife alleged she was overburdened with household work, but admitted during her testimony that multiple servants were employed in the house, contradicting her claim. The Court agreed with the Family Court’s conclusion that this allegation was “not proved.”
To succeed in her petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife had to prove that the husband had withdrawn from her society without reasonable cause. However, the Court noted,
“There is no averment either in the Petition or in the evidence led by the Appellant alleging/suggesting such withdrawal by the Respondent.”
On the contrary, she made serious accusations against him, which led the Family Court to question her genuine intention to resume cohabitation.
Regarding the wife’s withdrawal of consent from a previously filed mutual divorce petition, the Court observed that she was present in court with legal representation and her mother. There was no concrete evidence of coercion, and the complaint to the police came only after the consent was withdrawn,
“Her allegation that she was forced to file a consent petition is quite doubtful.”
She also failed to examine any witnesses, including her mother, to support her allegations. The Court concluded that this showed a lack of genuine interest in reconciliation.
The husband’s allegations of cruelty, including rude behavior, false accusations of infidelity, refusal of physical intimacy, and disrespect towards his specially abled sister and employees, were not rebutted or contradicted during cross-examination.
“His unchallenged and unrebutted testimony also demonstrates attempts made by him to save their marriage.”
The Appellant’s claim that she was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Respondent was also rejected. The Court found that multiple opportunities were provided, and the cross-examination had eventually been marked as closed.
“Thus, we find no force in this submission advanced by Ms. Tanna.”
ALSO READ: Mumbai Family Court Grants Divorce to Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashree Verma
Citing the Supreme Court’s observation in Roopa Soni v. Kamal Narayan Soni (2023) 16 SCC 715, the High Court emphasized that ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1)(ia) is a subjective concept that must be judged contextually,
“What is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man… a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required.”
Given the evidence and conduct of the Appellant, the Court held,
“The conduct of the Appellant as seen from the evidence on record can be construed as ‘cruelty’ against the Respondent.”
The Court also rejected the wife’s prayer for Rs. 1,00,000 monthly maintenance, noting that she did not make such a claim before the Family Court, nor was any evidence led on that issue.
“She has other efficacious remedies to agitate her claim of permanent alimony and maintenance, if she so desires, in an appropriate forum.”
Case Title: Smt. Priya Aashish Bodas Vs. Shri Aashish Rajiv Bodas
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3259 OF 2020
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on Divorce
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
