RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has held that a wife’s mere wish for her husband to live as a ‘Ghar-jamai’, a man who resides with his wife’s family or depends on them for support, does not constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce.
Consequently, a division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad, in an order passed on September 15, dismissed the husband’s appeal against the Family Court’s decision rejecting his plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty.
While interpreting the concept of cruelty under matrimonial law, the court stated that the conduct of one party must be so severe and intolerable that it becomes practically impossible for the couple to continue living together. The court emphasised that such conduct must go far beyond ordinary discord, mutual friction or day-to-day bickering inherent in married life.
The court also clarified that visiting her parental home after marriage is a fundamental right of every bride, and a wife’s visit to her parents’ home cannot be construed as harassment or cruelty towards the husband.
The court observed that in many marriages, one could find dozens of grounds for complaint if one chose to look for them, but such grievances often stem primarily from a lack of temperamental compatibility. Such discord cannot constitute valid grounds for divorce.
“From the testimony so recorded of the appellant husband, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has come to the conclusion that visiting parental house is as good as a right to every bride and it cannot be termed cruelty for the purpose of divorce, at any stretch of imagination,” stated the court order.
The High Court order further stated, “The learned Family Court Judge has also observed that practice of ‘Ghar-jamai’ is a very old custom prevailing in our society, but it remains to be absolute choice of groom to agree or not and there is no case that the appellant was compelled or forced to live as Ghar-jamai. Mere wish of respondent-wife that the appellant-husband should live as Ghar-jamai will not constitute cruelty for the purpose of Hindu Marriage Act.”
The Family Court, therefore, rejected the husband’s claim of cruelty.
The court held that the husband had failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty and found no perversity in the Family Court’s assessment of the evidence.
Accordingly, the court upheld the Family Court’s dismissal of the divorce petition and dismissed the appeal.
The case stemmed from a divorce petition filed by the husband. He claimed that while the early days of the marriage were peaceful, a rift developed when his wife began frequently visiting her parental home. He alleged that his in-laws were pressuring him to abandon his elderly parents and move in with them permanently.
The husband stated that he was the sole caregiver for his elderly parents and, consequently, refused to become a resident ‘Ghar-jamai’. He argued that this refusal subjected him to immense mental pressure and social stigma, prompting him to seek a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty.
They got married on November 21, 2008, in Patna and had an 11-year-old daughter.
