Mere Differences Or Desire For Separate Residence Not Cruelty: Chhattisgarh HC

Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that vague allegations of matrimonial misconduct and a wife's desire for a separate residence do not constitute 'cruelty' sufficient to dissolve a marriage, especially when the husband fails to prove a deliberate and persistent refusal of companionship. The High Court has set aside a divorce decree, emphasizing that the burden of proving matrimonial cruelty lies heavily on the spouse seeking dissolution and cannot be met by mere assertions.

In a significant determination regarding matrimonial standards, a division bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput heard an appeal filed by a wife challenging a Family Court's decision to dissolve her marriage. The husband had sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty, alleging misbehavior towards his parents and deprivation of sexual relations.

Key Takeaways

Standard of Proof for Cruelty

Serious allegations like verbal abuse and calling the matrimonial home a 'pig house' require independent corroboration and cannot be proved by mere repetition in evidence.

Right to Separate Residence

A wife's expression of a desire to live separately from her in-laws does not automatically amount to cruelty, particularly when there is a dispute regarding her acceptance by the husband's family.

Intentionality in Cohabitation

For the absence of sexual relations to constitute cruelty, it must be proved that such refusal was deliberate, unjustified, and persistent.

Preservation of Marriage

Courts cannot grant a decree of divorce solely because a relationship has become strained; the conduct complained of must make the continuation of the relationship reasonably impossible.

What Constitutes Matrimonial Cruelty

The Chhattisgarh High Court examined whether the husband established that the wife had treated him with such cruelty as would entitle him to a decree under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Bench observed that while the husband alleged the wife called the matrimonial home a "pig house," such claims require proper corroboration. The Court noted that the wife's insistence on living separately might be justified if she was not accepted by the husband's family. Pointing towards settled aspects of what constitutes cruelty in marriage, the Chhattisgarh High Court reminded that "It has already been judicially pronounced by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions that cruelty with regard to matrimony cannot be presumed merely from the existence of differences between spouses or from the fact that the spouses have been living separately. The conduct complained of must be proved and must be of such a nature that the matrimonial relationship has become reasonably impossible to continue."

The Court further emphasized that occasional feuds, incompatibility, or differences regarding residence with in-laws do not furnish grounds for dissolution of marriage without plausible evidence of grave misconduct.

Ratio

Cruelty in matrimonial law cannot be inferred from the mere existence of domestic differences or separate living; it requires proof of conduct so grave that the continuation of the matrimonial relationship becomes reasonably intolerable. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish that the refusal of companionship or sexual relations was deliberate and unjustified.

Background

The parties, both belonging to the Christian community, initially married on 25.07.2016 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, followed by a social ceremony in 2017. The husband, a CBI employee, alleged that the wife, a railway employee, misbehaved with his parents and forced him to live separately. He further claimed she deprived him of sexual relations, causing mental cruelty. The wife, however, contended that she was never accepted by her in-laws, who wanted the husband to marry within their own society. She alleged that she bore the household expenses and suffered a miscarriage due to the husband's ill-treatment, after which he deserted her.

The Family Court at Durg had previously ruled in favor of the husband, granting a decree of divorce. However, the Chhattisgarh High Court found that the husband's cross-examination contradicted his claims, as he admitted there were no major disputes and the wife expressed a willingness to live with him during the proceedings. Consequently, the Chhattisgarh High Court found the findings of the Family Court unsustainable and set aside the divorce decree.

Case Details:
Case No.: FA(MAT) No. 47 of 2021
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:41475-DB
Case Title: Smt. Shoshan Tirki v. K. Sagar
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Curtis Collins, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 18245