Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court granted divorce to a man, who submitted that his wife forced him to live in a separate room, holding that cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship and forcing him to live in a separate room and depriving him of his conjugal rights will amount to both physical and mental cruelty.
The High Court was hearing an appeal from the husband challenging a Lucknow family court order refusing to grant him a divorce.
Cohabitation an essential part of a matrimonial relationship: High Court
“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 have an adverse impact on his mental and physical well being and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty,” a bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said.
![OTT releases this week [October 28-November 3]: Thangalaan, Joker 2 and more!](https://i0.wp.com/www.indiapostlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OTT-releases-this-week-October-28-November-3-Thangalaan-Joker-2.png?resize=330%2C220&ssl=1 "OTT releases this week [October 28-November 3]: Thangalaan, Joker 2 and more! 5")
What did the husband submit?
The couple got married in November 2016. It was the first marriage of the wife, while a second marriage for the husband. The husband alleged that the relations between them remained normal merely for a period of four-five months and thereafter the wife started harassing him by various means and was not performing her matrimonial obligations and deserted him. He alleged that his wife used to abuse and threaten him and used to start a quarrel whenever some friends or relatives visited him and she used to insult him and damage the household goods in their presence. He further alleged that she forced him to live in a separate room and threatened that in case he entered her room, she would commit suicide and entangle his entire family in a criminal case.
Family court dismissed husband’s plea for divorce
The family court, while discarding the evidence of husband’s father and rejecting the plea of the husband for divorce, held that from the documents filed by him it appears that a dispute had occurred between him and his first wife also, which had culminated in their divorce. It further said that he has not given the detailed particulars of the threats extended by his second wife and such incidents can occur whenever there are quarrels between a husband and wife and that he has not adduced any evidence to establish that such incidents were occurring continuously.
High Court rejected findings of family court
The High Court, rejecting the findings of the family court, said that the events in question take place between the parties in matrimonial disputes within the four walls of their house, and the family members are the most natural witnesses of those events and the testimony of family members cannot be discarded on the assumption that they will only support the husband’s case. It further said that the family court has wrongly been influenced by the fact that a dispute had occurred between the him and his first wife also, which had culminated in their divorce. When the earlier marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and the first wife also did not level any allegations against him, the family court was not justified in making assumptions against the husband on the ground that his earlier marriage had failed, the High Court added.
There was sufficient evidence to prove ground of cruelty: High Court
“There was sufficient evidence to prove the ground of cruelty pleaded by the plaintiff-appellant (husband) for grant of a decree of divorce. The judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the Family Court is unsustainable in law,” the High Court said while setting aside the family court order and granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband dissolving his marriage with the respondent wife who did not appear before the High Court to oppose the appeal and, therefore, the appeal was decided ex-parte.
