Ranchi, September 17 (Daily Kiran) : The Jharkhand High Court delivered a significant ruling on September 17, stating that merely living separately in the same house, creating distance in marital relations, or alleged mistreatment of a spouse’s family members does not constitute sufficient evidence of mental cruelty for divorce. The court emphasized that claims of cruelty must be substantiated with solid, specific, and credible evidence.
This decision upheld a ruling from the Ranchi Family Court, which had dismissed a divorce petition filed by a husband citing mental cruelty. The court noted that typical disagreements, minor irritations, and personality clashes between spouses do not automatically equate to mental cruelty. The threshold for proving cruelty must be so severe that continuing to live together becomes practically impossible.
In this case, the husband, Dr. Mayank, and his wife, Reema, an assistant professor, were married on July 28, 2011, under the Special Marriage Act and later also through Hindu rituals. Dr. Mayank had approached the Family Court seeking divorce under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, claiming mental cruelty.
The Family Court rejected his petition on March 20, 2023, prompting him to appeal to the High Court. The husband accused his wife of mistreating his elderly and ill parents, refusing to engage in marital relations, and claimed that there had been no physical intimacy since 2012. He also alleged that she maintained a separate kitchen in their shared home and avoided communication with him.
Dr. Mayank argued that these circumstances caused him mental distress, adversely affecting his studies and career. In contrast, Reema denied the allegations, asserting that her father had provided 10 lakh rupees for the marriage, and she claimed that further financial demands were made for her husband’s education. She also reported that she had filed a complaint against her husband for harassment and expressed her desire to remain married.
After reviewing the evidence and witness statements, the High Court found the husband’s claims to be vague and general. The court noted that there was no specific incident or substantial evidence that could be classified as serious mental cruelty justifying the continuation of the marriage. Consequently, the bench dismissed the appeal, affirming the Family Court’s decision.
Leave a Comment