The Division Bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while granting divorce to a man who said his wife had forced him to live in a separate room and threatened suicide and criminal cases if he entered her room.

Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi

Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi

The Court said it was apparent that the wife had abandoned the matrimonial relationship when she insisted on living in separate rooms.

In this context, the Court added that it was of no significance whether the wife was still residing in the house or away, since the husband had categorically said that she did not allow him to enter her room.

“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. The plaintiff’s allegation of being wrongfully deprived of his conjugal rights has not been controverted by the defendant-respondent and the same has been admitted by implication,” the Court observed.

The couple got married in 2016 – it was the first marriage of the woman but the second marriage of the man.

In 2018, the husband moved the family court for divorce on the ground that relations between the parties had remained normal only for 4-5 months and that, thereafter, his wife had started harassing him. 

Though the wife had initially appeared before the family court, she later did not adhere to the summons to appear and thus the suit proceeded ex-parte.

The family court in January 2023 ruled against the husband, concluding that he had not given the detailed particulars of the threats extended by his wife or established that such incidents were occurring continuously. 

The husband then approached the High Court for relief.

The Court noted that though the wife initially had put appearance before the family court, she had not filed any written statement to challenge the husband’s allegations and thus she had impliedly admitted to his pleadings. 

“It was submitted in the written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff (husband) before the Family Court that the defendant (wife) has deserted the plaintiff since April, 2017 i.e., merely five months after the parties got married and she is not performing her matrimonial obligations since then. A period of five years had elapsed since the defendant stopped performing her matrimonial obligations towards the plaintiff and that she continuously behaved in a cruel manner,” the Court added.

The Bench further said the Family Court was wrong in discarding the evidence of the man’s father.

The trial court had reasoned that since he was the father of the man (husband), he would obviously support his son’s case. The High Court disagreed with this approach.

“In matrimonial disputes, the events in question take place between the parties within the four walls of their house, and the family members are the most natural witnesses of those events. The testimony of family members cannot be discarded on the assumption that they will only support the plaintiff’s case. The Family Court lost sight of the fact that the entire evidence of the plaintiff – appellant has remained unrebutted. The civil suits are required to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is applicable in criminal cases, does not apply to civil suits,” it said.

It also found that the family court had wrongly been swayed by the fact that the man had disputes with his first wife.

The earlier marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and the first wife had not levelled any allegations against him, the High Court noted.

“The Family Court was not justified in making assumptions against the plaintiff on the ground that his earlier marriage had failed,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove grounds of cruelty for the grant of divorce. 

“Although the ground of the plaintiff’s desertion by the defendant is also established from the material available on record, since the Family Court did not frame any issue on this point, and the ground of cruelty alone is sufficient for allowing the appeal, there is no need go into this question in this appeal,” it added, while ruling in favour of the husband by dissolving the marriage.