Couple's Intimate Moments Not For Court To Examine Unless Involve Extreme Cruelty: Allahabad HC
The high court made the observations while dealing with the alleged cruelty by the wife, which the husband had made a ground of divorce.
The Allahabad High Court in a recent order has observed that how a married couple conducts themselves in the privacy of their relationship is not for the courts to rule upon unless they involve acts of ex facie extreme cruelty and depravity.
The high court while dealing with a divorce case said that "What personal likes, preferences and habits, acts a party to a marriage may feel inclined to practice and indulge in and desire their partner to participate in, within the confines of that relationship that too involving intimate moments is not for the Court to explore or examine unless they involve acts of ex facie extreme cruelty and/ or depravity."
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh made the observation while dealing with an appeal moved by a woman against divorce granted by a lower court when the case was initiated by the husband even before completion of one year of marriage.
"We leave it to the better judgment of the parties to a marriage to find appropriate ways to adjust and conduct themselves in such situations. Suffice to note, merely because the respondent may have different behavioral preferences to act in intimate moments than those desired by the appellant, may remain an issue that may be best resolved by the parties to the marriage without any intervention being ever offered by the Court of law," the court observed.
The high court made the observations while dealing with the alleged cruelty by the wife, which the husband had made a ground of divorce.
While quashing the cruelty case against the wife, the high court further observed that the trial court has completely erred in failing to record any cogent finding on the issue of cruelty based on the pleadings and evidence on record. And the conclusion recorded by the trial court is based on extraneous considerations that were wholly irrelevant to the issue before it.
"How, the appellant (wife) conducted herself in the course of legal proceedings and how hard she fought to resist dissolution of her marriage, may never be construed as cruel behaviour against the appellant (husband). The fact that the appellant (wife) resisted the proceedings for dissolution of marriage only to re-establish her matrimonial relationship re-confirmed her intent to revive her matrimonial relationship with the respondent (husband)," the court said.
On the issue of cruelty, the high court said that the trial court has only observed the woman's conduct in resisting the divorce case. The woman had filed 3-4 cases against the Husband to resist divorce, which was not the cruelty alleged by the husband.
"It has not found any cruelty committed by the appellant (woman) in the matrimonial relationship formed by the parties. It has only referred to and relied on the conduct of the appellant in the course of legal proceedings, inasmuch as it has noted that the appellant instituted 3-4 cases against the respondent and filed revision petition against the order passed in the legal proceedings between the parties. That was not the cruelty alleged by the respondent. It was extraneous to the dispute," the high court observed.
The court noted that the couple had married in 1999 and just after 11 months, the husband filed for divorce. A family court granted divorce by allowing husband's plea in 2015. The husband had made cruelty as a ground for divorce.
Challenging the divorce, the wife argued that the husband’s plea for dissolution of marriage was not maintainable as it had been filed within one year from the date of marriage.
The court agreed that the petition for divorce within one year of marriage is not permitted under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Trending News
Top Headlines
