“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.
Recent judgments by the Calcutta High Court have clarified that a wife’s simple request to live separately from her husband does not necessarily amount to cruelty warranting a divorce.
A division bench comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas explained that such a request may be reasonable under specific circumstances. They emphasized that both spouses have mutual obligations to understand the emotions and reasons behind such a request.
The Court stressed that the foundation of a marital relationship is built on mutual trust and confidence. Additionally, not every disagreement between spouses should be considered mistreatment. The ruling, dated October 18, stated, “Two individuals raised in different environments may sometimes have differing opinions, but these distinctions are often considered as the normal challenges of a marriage. Not every dispute may reach the threshold of cruelty, which requires a high standard of proof.”
The court made this observation while rejecting a husband’s divorce plea. The husband had filed for divorce, citing cruel treatment and abandonment. He claimed that his wife frequently quarreled with him, demanded a separate income, and neglected her household duties. He also alleged that she tried to control his finances and had left him in 2013 by vacating their marital home.
The wife refuted all these allegations, explaining that she had moved to her parents’ home to continue her education and had later moved to live with the husband’s father in Jharkhand as per the husband’s request while he continued to reside in Kolkata. She also disclosed that her husband was involved in an extramarital relationship with a colleague in Kolkata. Despite this, the wife expressed her willingness to live with her husband.
The court determined that the husband’s claims against the wife were unsubstantiated. It noted, “The evidence suggests that the wife did not disassociate from her spouse without cause. There is no evidence from either party to suggest that she refused to cook meals or prepare his lunch. She has explicitly stated that she has prepared meals and is ready to do so because she still has an emotional connection with him. Despite his extramarital affair, she is willing to live a harmonious conjugal life.”
Furthermore, the court took note of the wife’s claim that she had been prevented from entering the marital home and was only allowed to return after local intervention. It was revealed that the husband had left the home to live with his colleague. The husband’s refusal to provide the name or contact information of this colleague during cross-examination led the High Court to cast doubt on his credibility. Consequently, the court found that the wife’s assertion regarding the husband’s extramarital relationship had been proven.
Considering these factors, the court dismissed the divorce petition.
Partha Pratim Roy and Dyutiman Banerjee represented the husband.
