Allegation that wife quarrels isn't enough to prove cruelty: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an allegation that a wife picks unnecessary quarrels with her husband does not constitute sufficient basis to establish mental agony to grant the husband a divorce on the ground of cruelty [Dr. Bagish Kumar Mishra v. Rinki Mishra].The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a man (appellant) who challenged a family court's rejection of his divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.A Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the husband's claims of cruelty amounted to nothing more than the usual challenges and disagreements encountered in married life.“The allegations with regard to cruelty as set out by the appellant/ husband, are nothing but the normal wear and tear in married life ... The allegations that she was quarreling with him without any reason, in the considered view of this Court, are not sufficient to form any opinion that the appellant/husband is undergoing acute mental pain, agony, suffering, disappointment and frustration and therefore it is not possible for him to live in the company of the respondent/wife, “ the Court observed..The Court concluded that the man had failed to prove his case beyond the normal dynamics of a strained marital relationship. It ruled that no legal grounds existed to grant him a divorce..The appellant before the Court had sought a divorce from his wife citing mental and physical cruelty.The appellant, a government doctor, alleged that his 2015 marriage to his wife was conducted under coercion. After the marriage, he claimed to have faced severe restrictions and accusations, including defamatory allegations of immoral conduct. He also alleged that he was subjected to physical assault and blackmail using manipulated images. His wife denied these claims, asserting that the marriage was consensual and that they had cohabited as husband and wife for years. She accused the appellant of attempting to mislead the Court and engaging in harassment and exploitation. She contended that the appellant’s claims were fabricated to obtain a divorce to pursue a relationship with another woman. The appellant argued that his wife's actions, including filing multiple police complaints, making defamatory accusations, and creating a hostile marital environment, amounted to cruelty under the law. It was submitted that the trial court failed to adequately consider these aspects, leading to a miscarriage of justice. .The High Court, however, found that the appellant failed to substantiate his claims with specific and credible evidence. The Court noted that all the allegations levelled by the appellant were general and ambiguous. “All the allegations levelled by the appellant/husband are general and omnibus in nature. The major allegation amongst them is with regard to her not permitting him to meet his parents and friends and regarding misbehaviour with him in front of his friend and hospital staff and also having lodged frivolous complaints against the appellant, which alone is not sufficient to grant a decree of divorce. The complaints lodged by the respondent/wife had to be proved false and malicious by the Appellant, so as to meet the threshold of cruelty,” the Court observed..The Court also noted that the wife's claims of being subjected to physical and mental harassment appeared to be on a stronger footing than the appellant's claims. "The instances of physical and mental harassment, as pleaded and asserted by the respondent/wife in her written statement, are on the better footing than those alleged by the appellant/husband," the Court said..The Court proceeded to hold that the husband's allegations were not grave or weighty enough to justify allowing his plea to dissolve the marriage. Therefore, the husband's appeal was dismissed. .Advocates Alok Tripathi, Anju Agarwal, Hari Om Pandey, Meena Bajpai, Nisha Srivastava and Shailesh Kumar Srivastava represented the appellant, Advocate Surya Prakash Singh appeared for the appellant's wife. Advocate Rajneesh Kumar Verma appeared for another respondent. .[Read Order]