Bombay HC rejects man's divorce plea, says routine marital disagreements aren't cruelty

Mere annoyance irritation and routine disagreements between spouses do not amount to mental cruelty or provide sufficient grounds for divorce the Bombay High Court has said while rejecting a mans plea to end his marriage on grounds of crueltyA Nagpur bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Raj Wakode observed that disagreements are a normal part of married life and that cruelty must be of a nature that makes it unreasonable for a couple to continue living togetherThe court made the observations in an order passed on Wednesday while dismissing a petition filed by a 44yearold man challenging a family court order that had refused to grant him a divorce on grounds of crueltyCourt says entire married life must be assessedThe High Court said allegations of cruelty cannot be assessed on the basis of a few isolated incidents Instead the court must consider the couples married life as a whole before determining whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty under lawThere have been marked changes in the life around us and also in matrimonial duties and responsibilities it said adding that the meaning and impact of cruelty could differ from one marriage to anotherThe cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are leading or their economic and social conditions It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance the HC saidThe court noted that the nature of matrimonial relationships has changed over time and that conduct considered unacceptable in one marriage may not necessarily amount to cruelty in anotherNormal quarrels do not automatically amount to crueltyThe bench observed that every marriage has its normal share of quarrels disagreements and differences between spousesAny such disputes it said must be distinguished from mental cruelty which has a more serious legal meaningThe allegations of cruelty cannot be considered on trivial issues General allegations of cruelty do not constitute cruelty in the eyes of law so as to grant decree of dissolution of marriage on that premise the HC statedThe court further held that mere annoyance or irritation caused by one spouse to another would not necessarily constitute crueltyMere annoyance or irritation by one spouse may not constitute cruelty the court said Cruelty it added should be of such a nature that the spouses cannot reasonably be expected to continue living togetherMan alleged wife quarrelled with him motherThe petitioner had challenged a family court order that not only rejected his divorce plea but also directed him to pay maintenance of Rs 5000 per month to his wifeThe couple married in 2003 The man claimed that his wife left the matrimonial home in 2011 after subjecting him and his parents to mental crueltyAccording to his allegations his wife was shorttempered and regularly quarrelled with his mother over what he described as trivial issues He also alleged that she blamed him for the couples inability to conceiveThe woman disputed these allegations and presented a different account of the marital disputeWife alleged illtreatment by husband familyThe woman claimed that she had returned to her husbands home but that he refused to resume cohabitation with herShe also alleged that her husband and his family had illtreated her over the couples inability to conceiveAfter considering the rival claims the High Court declined to treat the allegations and disagreements cited by the husband as sufficient evidence of mental cruelty warranting dissolution of the marriageThe bench therefore dismissed his petition and upheld the family courts decision refusing to grant him a divorceWith inputs from PTI