The Telangana High Court has expanded the meaning of cruelty in marriage, ruling that any act by one spouse that harms the others reputation, social standing, or employment opportunities is considered cruelty. In addition, the court stated that it could be considered cruel to prevent a spouse from using Facebook and Instagram. The statements were made by a division bench made up of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and MG Priyadarshini during the hearing of an appeal filed by a husband seeking a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). The appellants divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the HMA, 1955 was dismissed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar in a judgment dated November 2, 2021. This led to the appeal.Divorce on these grounds!The Court reversed the earlier ruling and granted a divorce based on cruelty and desertion. It emphasized that marriage cannot be forced upon people and that its purpose should not be to force people to stay in an unhappy marriage. In particular, if the parties agreement has irrevocably broken down, the court has a restricted role in the whole situation and should not function as an executioner (in the sense of a hangman) or a counselor to compel the couples to continue living as wife and husband, the ruling said.The curious case of a couple On December 1, 2010, the wife and appellant/husband were wed according to Hindu customs. Beginning on December 4, 2010, the pair experienced marital problems, which resulted in the woman moving out of the marital residence on November 1, 2011. On September 13, 2011, a kid was born to the couple. On July 11, 2012, the wife filed a case. On August 25, 2012, the husband and his family were granted anticipatory bail. The appellant did not pursue the case, despite having filed for divorce in 2012.Subsequently, the respondent brought five criminal proceedings against the appellant, alleging violations of Indian Penal Code Section 498-A. Even after they had a brief reunion in May 2015, the respondent persisted in accusing the appellant of crimes.The husbands divorce petition was denied by the Trial Court in November 2021 on the grounds that he had not proven cruelty. The husband subsequently filed an appeal with the High Court, claiming that his wife had been cruel both physically and mentally by persistently filing criminal proceedings. In addition, he stated that she had abandoned him in 2011 by moving out of the married house and coming back for a short time in 2015 before bringing additional lawsuits.The case takes over The respondents actions, including starting seven legal cases against the appellant, were deemed by the court to be acts of mental cruelty. The appellants protracted separation from the state since 2011 and lack of work served as additional evidence that the marriage had irreversibly collapsed. Marriage is considerably more than an exchange of vows or a single ceremony, the court stated. It necessitates constructing a shared house piece by piece, supported by a persistent desire to live together. Every marriage consists of a foundation and a core that hold two people together. When married people want to separate from one another, the foundation of the partnership crumbles. Rejecting a divorce petition when both parties have shown evidence that the marriages foundation has irreversibly collapsed would be unnatural. The cases mentioned make it clear that, in cases where the foundation of the marriage has collapsed to the point where the building cannot be repaired or preserved, cruelty is only one of the falling splinters. Insanity, cruelty, and abandonment are just a few of the reasons that could lead to a move in that way. The court continued, The courts ought to keep such matters confidential. The Court cannot force the couples to reconcile and live together as husband and wife, since the entire foundation of the marriage has fallen apart, the court ruled in its ruling. We are certain that the appellant is entitled to a divorce decision based on cruelty and the irreversible breakdown of the marriage. The judge stated, There is no possibility of the parties resuming their married lives. Thus, the trial courts argument that the fleeting reunion in 2015 demonstrated forgiveness was dismissed.
