NAGPUR: Mere annoyance and the ordinary “wear and tear” of married life cannot amount to cruelty warranting divorce, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has ruled. It rejected a husband’s plea to dissolve his 2003 marriage and upheld an order granting his wife monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000.
A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Raj. Wakode dismissed the family court’s appeal of 2016 for divorce filed by a 44-year-old Kamptee man against his wife. “Mere annoyance or irritation may not constitute cruelty, rather it is a spontaneous change in human behaviour which restricts the other side to live with the spouse in the fear of endangering life or bodily injuries. Marital life should be assessed as a whole and few isolated instances over a certain period will not amount to cruelty,” the court said.The husband had alleged his wife frequently quarrelled with his mother, blamed him for their inability to have a child, made false allegations of ill-treatment and lodged complaints against him, causing immense mental agony.The wife, through counsel Anil Thakre, denied the allegations, contending she had been subjected to ill-treatment and dowry demands. The counsel claimed that she repeatedly tried to return to her matrimonial home but was not allowed.The bench found the husband’s evidence did not establish specific acts of physical or mental cruelty. His cross-examination, the court noted, showed his wife had assisted him and his family during his father’s illness and participated in family rituals. It also showed she made attempts to resume cohabitation, while he had not taken steps to bring her back.“General allegations of cruelty do not constitute cruelty in eyes of law,” the bench said, stressing allegations must be specific with regards to “time, place and manner” of conduct.The court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Samar Ghosh versus Jaya Ghosh, and said matrimonial life must be assessed in totality.The judges also rejected the challenge to maintenance. The family court had recorded that the husband, an ordnance factory employee, was earning ₹23,808 a month. “The wife had previously worked as a nurse and quit her job after marriage and had no independent source of income,” they said.HC held the husband’s own admissions established refusal and neglect on his part. It found the ₹5,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the wife “reasonable and justifiable” and saw no ground to interfere.
