Wife forcing husband to live in separate room amounts to cruelty: Allahabad High Court
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in a judgment held that refusal by the wife to live with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room amounts to cruelty and, therefore, is a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
A bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Subhash Vidyarthi said,
“Cohabitation is an essential part of the marital relationship and if the wife refuses to live with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse effect on his mental and physical health and amounts to both physical and mental cruelty. The allegation of the plaintiff being wrongfully deprived of her conjugal rights has not been denied by the defendant and is admitted by implication.”
The Court relied on the case of Parveen Mehta v Indrajit Mehta, in which the Supreme Court defined mental and physical cruelty and held that though physical cruelty can be proved by way of evidence, there cannot be direct evidence to prove mental cruelty.
It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. It held that a single instance or act cannot be treated as mental cruelty, the cumulative facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine this.
The Court observed that even though the respondent-wife had appeared before the Family Court, she did not file any written statement denying the facts stated by the husband.
The Court said, “It is a well-settled principle of law that confession is the best evidence and admitted facts do not require any proof.”
The Court observed that the testimony of the appellant’s father was wrongly rejected by the Family Court because in matrimonial disputes, family members are the most natural witnesses to the events taking place within the four walls of the house. It held that the father's testimony cannot be ignored merely because it was supporting the appellant's case even though it was not denied by the respondent-wife.
The court said, "Civil suits are to be decided on the basis of a preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is applicable in criminal cases, is not applicable to civil suits."
Further, the court held that the Family Court erred in holding that the appellant had not proved that the wife had left the house when it was clearly stated that the wife had refused to live together and allowed the husband to enter her room. The court observed that the wife had clearly abandoned the marital relationship between the parties.
Holding that depriving the plaintiff of her conjugal rights amounted to cruelty, the court set aside the judgment of the Family Court and granted divorce to the parties.
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Srivastava vs. Smt. Shweta Srivastava [FIRST APPEAL No. - 32 of 2023]
Post a Comment