The Allahabad High Court, while granting divorce to parties on the ground of cruelty, observed that cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship, and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiff filed the present appeal against the order rejecting the divorce petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The divorce petition was foiled on the grounds of cruelty, pleading that the wife forced him to live in a separate room and would threaten suicide if he tried to enter the room.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the defendant has deserted the plaintiff since April 2017 i.e., merely five months after the parties got married and she is not performing her matrimonial obligations since then. A period of five years had elapsed since the defendant stopped performing her matrimonial obligations towards the plaintiff and she continuously behaved cruelly.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the decision in the case of Parveen Mehta and Inderjit Mehta, wherein it was held that though physical cruelty can be proved through evidence, there may not be direct evidence to prove mental cruelty and one instance or act cannot be treated as mental cruelty, cumulative facts and circumstances need to be considered for determining the same. It was observed by the court that an instance or act could not be treated as mental cruelty; cumulative facts and circumstances need to be considered for determining the same and stated that it is a well-established principle of law that admission is the best evidence, and the admitted facts need no proof.
Further, the court observed that the family court was wrong in discarding the testimony of the appellant’s father, and the family members are the most natural witnesses of what goes on within the four walls of the house in matrimonial disputes. It was stated by the court that civil suits are required to be decided based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is applicable in criminal cases, does not apply to civil suits.
It was further observed by the court that cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship, and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will harm his mental and physical well-being and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty. The court held that the Family Court was wrong in holding that the appellant had not proved that the wife had left home when it was clearly stated that the wife had refused to cohabit and let the husband enter her room and the wife had clearly deserted the matrimonial relationship between the parties.
The decision of the Court:
The court set aside the order of the family court and granted divorce to the parties on the grounds of cruelty.
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Srivastava vs Sweta Srivastava
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajan Roy and Hon’ble Mr Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Case No.: First Appeal No.: 32 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
