“Mere demanding to live separately cannot be said to be a cruelty of such degree which would invite the marital tie to be severed”, the Court said.
A mere demand by a wife to live separately from here husband does not always amount to cruelty warranting the severance of marital ties, the Calcutta High Court recently observed. [Koushal Kumar vs Priyanka Kumari].
A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas explained that there may be circumstances in which such a demand may be reasonable.
In such a situation, both husband and wife have reciprocal obligations to understand the emotions and the circumstances that gave rise to such a demand, the judges added.
“Mere demanding to live separately cannot be said to be a cruelty of such degree which would invite the marital tie to be severed. There may be circumstances for such demand which cannot be said to be unreasonable and therefore, it is a reciprocal obligations imposed upon both the persons to understood the emotions in the attending circumstances,” the Court’s judgment stated.
The Court also emphasised that the marital relationship depends upon the trust and confidence reposed in each other by the spouses. Every conflict between spouses may not amount to cruelty, the Court opined further.
“Two individuals brought up in a different environment may at times have a conflicting views but those are always regarded as a vagaries of life as well as normal wear and tear of the marital relationship. Every conflict may not tantamount to a cruelty, which is decided on a high degree of the evidence,” the October 18 judgment stated.
The Court made the observation while dismissing a husband’s plea for divorce.
The husband moved the Court alleging cruelty and desertion. He claimed that his wife often picked quarrels with him, demanded a separate living and did not cook food for him.
He further alleged that the wife tried to control his finances and that she eventually deserted him by leaving the matrimonial house in 2013.
The wife denied all these allegations. She stated that she had moved to her parental house to pursue her education. She submitted that she was later asked to live in the father-in-law’s house in Jharkhand, while the husband remained in Kolkata. She respected this wish, the Court was told.
She also said that her husband had an extramarital affair with a colleague and that he was living with the said lady in Kolkata.
Despite this, the wife was ready to cohabit with him, the Court was told.
The bench found that the husband failed to prove his allegations against the wife.
“The evidence goes to prove that the wife never disassociated herself from the husband without any reason and rhyme. There is no evidence put forth by either of the parties that she refused to cook the food nor ever prepared tiffin for him. She has categorically asserted that she, in fact, prepared the food and is ready to prepare the food for him as she has still an emotional connect with him and despite the fact that he has a relationship outside the marriage, she is ready to live a happy conjugal life,” the bench noted.
Further, the Court took note of a claim that the wife was earlier restrained from entering the matrimonial home and that she was only allowed inside after local people intervened.
However, the husband is then said to have left the same house and started living with his colleague.
The fact that the husband refused to divulge the name or contact details of the said lady colleague during cross-examination also prompted the High Court to draw an adverse inference against him.
“Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegation of the wife that the husband had a relationship with a lady outside the marital institution has not been proved,” the Court said.
In view of all these aspects, the Court proceeded to dismiss the plea for divorce.
