Wife Denying Physical Relations, Alleging Extra-Marital Affairs & Humiliating Husband Before Friends Amounts To Cruelty: Bombay High Court Grants Divorce

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has upheld a decree of divorce granted to a husband after finding that his wife’s conduct, including refusal of physical relations, allegations of extra-marital affairs and humiliation before friends, amounted to cruelty.

A Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale dismissed the wife’s appeal against the Family Court, Pune judgment, which had rejected her petition for restitution of conjugal rights and allowed the husband’s counterclaim for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The couple married on 12 December 2013 and lived together for about 12 months before separating on 14 December 2014. They filed a mutual consent divorce petition in April 2015, but the wife later withdrew her consent. She subsequently made a police complaint against the husband and his family and filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The husband opposed it and sought divorce.

The High Court noted that the wife’s claim that she was forced to consent to mutual divorce was doubtful. She had been personally present before the court, was represented by an advocate and was accompanied by her mother. The Court also noticed that her police complaint against the husband and his family came only after she withdrew consent to the mutual divorce petition. The Bench observed that this showed an inclination to harass the husband after the mutual consent proceedings failed.

The husband had placed several instances of alleged cruelty before the Family Court. He stated that his wife behaved badly with his specially-abled sister, was rude to his employees, humiliated him before friends, refused physical relations after a few months of marriage and accused him of having extra-marital affairs. The High Court found that his testimony on material aspects remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Roopa Soni v. Kamal Narayan Soni, (2023) 16 SCC 715, which explained that cruelty has no fixed meaning and must be examined according to the facts and circumstances of each marriage.

The Supreme Court passage reproduced by the High Court stated:

“What constitutes cruelty is objective, though an element of subjectivity must be applied. What may amount to cruelty for a woman may not necessarily be cruelty for a man. Courts must adopt a broader approach while examining matrimonial cruelty. Historically, divorce law was based on the fault theory and preservation of marriage, but with a more liberal approach, the grounds for separation and dissolution of marriage have also been interpreted more broadly.”

Applying this principle, the High Court held that the wife’s conduct could be treated as cruelty towards the husband. Her behaviour with his employees was found capable of causing him agony, while humiliating him before his friends was also treated as cruelty. Her indifferent behaviour towards his specially-abled sister was found capable of causing pain to the husband and his family.

Importantly, the Court held that refusal to have a physical relationship and making allegations of extra-marital relations also amounted to cruelty in the facts of this case, particularly because the evidence on these aspects had not been effectively challenged in cross-examination.

The Court also considered the husband’s attempt to save the marriage. He had moved out of his family home into a rented flat, invited his wife to live there and gave her the key. She did not join him. This evidence remained unchallenged and weakened her allegation that the husband had deserted her.

The parties had already remained separated for more than a decade by the time the appeal was decided. The Court observed that the marriage no longer survived and that continuing the appeal merely prolonged an already concluded matrimonial relationship. It therefore found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s decree.

The wife also sought ₹1 lakh per month as maintenance for the first time before the High Court. The Bench rejected this prayer because she had not sought permanent alimony or maintenance before the Family Court, and no evidence had been led there to determine such an amount. The Court, however, clarified that she could pursue an appropriate remedy in separate proceedings if she wished.

The wife’s appeal was dismissed, leaving intact the decree dissolving the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Denying physical relations can amount to cruelty when proved in the facts of the marriage.
• Baseless allegations of extra-marital affairs can cause mental cruelty to a husband.
• Humiliating a husband before his friends was among the conduct considered by the Court while examining cruelty.
• The husband’s material evidence remained unchallenged and unrebutted, strengthening his case for divorce.
• A husband is not expected to endlessly remain trapped in a marriage causing cruelty. The Bombay High Court upheld the divorce decree.