[Conjugal Rights] “Wife Forcing Husband To Live In Separate Room Is Cruelty”: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court observed that when a wife declines to cohabit with the husband and forces him to a live separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights and the same amounts to cruelty.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court ruled that when a wife refuses to cohabit with her husband and forces him to live in a separate room, it constitutes cruelty as it deprives him of his conjugal rights.

This observation was made by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi while granting a divorce to a man who alleged that his wife had compelled him to live separately and threatened him with suicide and criminal charges if he attempted to enter her room.

The Court noted that the wife had effectively abandoned the matrimonial relationship by insisting on living in separate rooms, which amounted to cruelty. The Court emphasized that the wife’s continued residence in the same house was irrelevant given that the husband had clearly stated she did not allow him to enter her room.

“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 plaintiff’s allegation of being wrongfully deprived of his conjugal rights has not been controverted by the defendant-respondent and the same has been admitted by implication,”

-the Court observed.

The couple had married in 2016— it was the woman’s first marriage and the man’s second. However, in 2018, the husband filed for divorce, citing that the relationship had only been normal for the first four to five months, after which his wife began to harass him. Although the wife initially appeared before the family court, she later failed to comply with court summons, leading the suit to proceed ex-parte.

In January 2023, the family court ruled against the husband, arguing that he had not provided detailed evidence of the threats made by his wife or shown that such incidents were continuous. Unsatisfied with this decision, the husband appealed to the High Court.

The High Court observed that although the wife had initially appeared before the family court, she had not filed any written statement to counter the husband’s allegations, thereby implicitly admitting to his claims.

“It was submitted in the written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff (husband) before the Family Court that the defendant (wife) has deserted the plaintiff since April 2017, i.e., merely five months after the parties got married, and she is not performing her matrimonial obligations since then. A period of five years had elapsed since the defendant stopped performing her matrimonial obligations towards the plaintiff and that she continuously behaved in a cruel manner,”

-the Court noted.

The High Court also criticized the family court for dismissing the testimony of the husband’s father, noting that in matrimonial disputes, family members are often the most natural witnesses to the events in question.

“The testimony of family members cannot be discarded on the assumption that they will only support the plaintiff’s case. The Family Court lost sight of the fact that the entire evidence of the plaintiff – appellant has remained unrebutted. The civil suits are required to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is applicable in criminal cases, does not apply to civil suits,”

-the High Court stated.

Moreover, the High Court found that the family court had wrongly been influenced by the fact that the man had experienced disputes in his previous marriage. The earlier marriage had ended in a mutual consent divorce, and the first wife had not made any allegations against him. The High Court concluded that the family court was not justified in making assumptions against the husband based on his previous marriage.

Ultimately, the High Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to prove grounds of cruelty for the grant of divorce. The Court noted that while the issue of desertion by the wife was also established, it did not need to address this point as the ground of cruelty alone was sufficient for allowing the appeal. As a result, the Court ruled in favor of the husband, dissolving the marriage.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Conjugal Rights

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES