The Telangana High Court last week dismissed a man’s appeal seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, citing a Supreme Court ruling that said a marriage should be reviewed as a whole and that “a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty”.
The judgment, delivered by Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B R Madhusudhan Rao on August 7, affirmed the decision of the lower family court, which had previously rejected the man’s petition.
The case, dating back to 2017, involved a couple married in February 2014. The man claimed his wife was “unaccommodative, quarrelsome and dominating in nature”, abused him in “vulgar and filthy language”, and “never used to attend the household work”. He further alleged that she denied him conjugal rights and did not contribute financially despite being a government employee.
In the ruling, the judges noted that the appellant’s testimony was a “replica of the petition averments” and that he failed to provide any corroborating evidence. The court also found that the husband had not examined any other witnesses, such as his parents, to substantiate his claims of cruelty.
The court cited the Supreme Court precedent in the case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh, and quoted, “The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.”
Further, it noted, “The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.”
The division bench also observed, “Except the testimony of the appellant, no other evidence is placed by him to show that he underwent cruelty in the hands of his wife.”
Story continues below this ad
Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial court had “rightly dismissed” the family court original petition by assigning sufficient reasons, and stated they were “not inclined to interfere” with the decision.
