In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a husband’s plea for divorce, asserting that vague allegations of his wife engaging in unnecessary quarrels were insufficient to establish cruelty as a ground for divorce. The case, Dr Bagish Kumar Mishra v. Rinki Mishra, highlights the Court’s view that such claims reflect the usual tensions and disagreements common in many marriages, not the serious mental or physical cruelty required by law to justify dissolving a marriage.
The Bench, comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla, was hearing an appeal by a man who sought to challenge a family court’s rejection of his petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband had accused his wife of subjecting him to both physical and mental cruelty, including baseless accusations and physical assault. He also claimed that their marriage, which took place in 2015, had been coerced and that he had been blackmailed using manipulated images.
However, the wife strongly denied these allegations, asserting that the marriage was consensual and accusing her husband of attempting to get a divorce to pursue a relationship with another woman. She claimed that the allegations made by her husband were fabricated and that he had been harassing her.
The High Court, after examining the evidence, found that the husband’s allegations lacked specific details and were ambiguous. “The major allegations, including not being allowed to meet his parents and accusations of misbehaviour in front of his friends and hospital staff, were not sufficient to prove cruelty,” the Court noted. Additionally, the Court pointed out that the husband’s complaints regarding the wife’s police reports needed to be proven false and malicious to meet the legal threshold for cruelty.
On the other hand, the Court found that the wife’s claims of harassment were more plausible and warranted greater consideration. The Court observed that her allegations of physical and mental suffering appeared to be more credible than those presented by the husband.
In conclusion, the Court emphasized that marital difficulties and disagreements are normal and that, in this case, the husband had failed to substantiate his claims with the gravity required to dissolve the marriage. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the marriage was upheld.
The ruling reaffirms that the legal standard for cruelty in divorce proceedings requires more than general complaints of marital discord. It underscores the importance of providing specific, credible evidence to substantiate claims of cruelty before a marriage can be legally dissolved.
Advocates Alok Tripathi, Anju Agarwal, Hari Om Pandey, and others represented the appellant, while Advocate Surya Prakash Singh appeared for the wife.
