In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court has redefined the contours of marital cruelty, emphasizing that a husband’s neglect in providing financial assistance and failing to include his wife and children in his service register amounts to cruelty. This significant ruling came about in a case where a wife appealed against a Family Court order that granted her husband a divorce on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Also read-Madras High Court Addresses Generation Z’s Porn Addiction (lawchakra.in)
The bench, consisting of Justices RMT Teekaa Raman and PB Balaji, scrutinized the circumstances leading to the marital discord. The court observed,
“None of the allegation that was averred by the husband as cruelty and nor proved in the manner known to law…. we find that she has demonstrated the cruelty at the hands of the husband to the effect that he is not interested to live with the wife and children by not giving any financial assistance and has not included the wife and children in the service register in the railways so as to enjoy the facilities as a family member. These admitted facts would go to show that it is the husband, who has committed cruelty and therefore, the wife was forced to live in the house of her father.”
The case revealed that the husband and wife had been living separately for approximately 12 years. The husband filed for divorce, citing cruelty under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). He alleged that his wife had made false accusations of an illicit relationship with a co-employee. The Family Court initially sided with the husband, noting that such allegations constituted mental cruelty and granted the divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
However, the wife’s narrative painted a different picture. She expressed her willingness to reunite with her husband and sought restitution of conjugal rights. She recounted that her husband had ceased to come home following a dispute at their daughter’s puberty function. Furthermore, she highlighted his lack of financial and educational support for their children, which led her to file a maintenance case. Despite the court awarding maintenance, the husband did not comply.
The High Court’s decision to overturn the Family Court’s order was rooted in the legal definition of cruelty. The court emphasized that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated in a manner established by law. The judgment also reflected on the broader legal context, noting that cruelty, as a ground for divorce, was introduced in the HMA only after the 1976 amendment. The concept of cruelty encompasses both physical and mental harm, and the Supreme Court has clarified in several judgments, including Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) and Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007), that there is no fixed definition of cruelty.
This ruling by the Madras High Court is a significant step in acknowledging the complexities of marital relationships and the various forms of cruelty that can arise within them. It underscores the importance of financial responsibility and familial inclusion as integral components of marital duties, broadening the legal understanding of what constitutes cruelty in a marriage.
Also read-Calcutta High Court Approves Live Telecast For Ram Mandir Inauguration (lawchakra.in)
