Alleging affair if wife talks to men is cruelty, ‘gender stereotype’: Jharkhand High Court

Accusing one’s wife of having an extramarital relationship just because she spoke to another man amounted to cruelty towards her, the Jharkhand High Court has held, while referring to such allegations as “typical gender-based stereotypes”. The court upheld a trial court’s decision to reject a husband’s divorce plea, finding that he had failed to prove cruelty or desertion by his wife.

Chief Justice M S Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad were hearing a plea filed by the man seeking divorce from his wife on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

“The husband’s allegations begin with an assertion that his wife had an extramarital relationship, including statements that she used to talk to an unknown male over the husband’s own mobile phone. To our considered view, such allegations are typical gender-based stereotypes, where, if a woman talks to a man, even if he is a friend, charges of adultery or of an extramarital relationship are levelled. We are, therefore, of the considered view that such allegations amount to cruelty towards the wife,” the November 3 order read.

According to the judgment, the couple got married on April 30, 2005, and lived together as husband and wife, having two children. The husband claimed that despite coming to the matrimonial home, the wife never tried to establish a marital relationship with him and always kept her distance.

The man alleged that his wife tried to create disturbances in their matrimonial life and also disregarded her in-laws. He claimed that she was of a “suspicious” character because she would talk continuously on his mobile phone with another man, which caused disputes between the couple.

Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad refused to grant divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife.

The husband stated that on April 15, 2015, the wife left the matrimonial home without informing her in-laws and went to her parental home, and has since been residing with her parents. He then approached the trial court seeking divorce.

The wife stated before the trial court that she had fully co-operated in maintaining the marital relationship, but was tortured by the husband amid dowry demands. She alleged that it was the husband who pursued an extramarital relationship with a woman co-worker and said that she returned to her parents’ house because of the physical and mental torture.

Story continues below this ad

The wife claimed that though the husband never tried to bring her back to the matrimonial home, she still wished to restore their conjugal life as long as she was given due respect and honour. After evaluating the evidence, the trial court dismissed the husband’s case.

‘Marriage turned into formality’

Advocate Atanu Banerjee, appearing for the husband, submitted that the couple’s daughter supported the case and stated that her mother frequently quarreled with her father and grandmother. The counsel argued that the facts of the case clearly established physical and mental cruelty.

The couple had lived separately for over six years before the case was filed and the marriage had become only a formality, the counsel said, claiming that the wife had deserted the husband without any valid reason.

Appearing for the wife, advocate Ranjan Kumar said she was ready to resume marital life and had made efforts towards the same. The counsel stated that the allegations of cruelty and desertion by the wife were not proved.

Story continues below this ad

No proof of cruelty by wife: HC

The high court stated that though cruelty was not defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, for the purpose of granting divorce to a couple, the extent of cruelty must be such that matrimonial life becomes incompatible due to the same.

After evaluating the evidence submitted by the husband, it said there was no reliable proof that he was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the woman.

The high court observed that the wife had expressed her desire to restore the matrimonial life, which was refused by the husband and further held that the husband was not able to prove a case for divorce of the grounds of cruelty or desertion.