The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a wife’s occasional refusal to have physical relations cannot be termed cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, dismissing a husband’s appeal seeking divorce.
In Jitendra Jani v. Smt. Bhumi Jani (2025), the Court reiterated that trivial disputes and ordinary wear and tear of marital life cannot be equated with cruelty. The ruling also emphasized that even in uncontested cases, the burden of proving cruelty lies squarely on the petitioner.
The husband had approached the Family Court in Jabalpur under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion. He claimed that his wife refused to live with his parents, quarreled over minor issues, threatened suicide, neglected him during the COVID-19 pandemic, withdrew from marital obligations, and finally left the matrimonial home on March 28, 2024. The Family Court dismissed the petition, prompting the appeal before the High Court.
On the issue of desertion, the Court clarified that Section 13(1)(ib) requires continuous desertion for at least two years prior to filing the petition. Since the wife left in March 2024 and the petition was filed in July 2024, the statutory condition was not fulfilled.
Turning to cruelty, the Bench noted that cruelty is not defined under the Act but must be of such gravity that one spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. Citing precedents such as Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) and Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur (2010), the Court held that trivial irritations, disagreements, or occasional refusals of cohabitation do not constitute cruelty.
The Court observed:
“In ordinary wear and tear of married life, occasional refusal to perform marital obligation is not sufficient to attract mental cruelty. To establish such cruelty there must be persistent refusal to have sexual relationship. Therefore, respondent cannot be held responsible for the denial of coitus so as to constitute cruelty.”
It further noted that the couple had lived together for 17 years and had two children, indicating continuity of marital relations. Complaints such as refusal to wear a mangalsutra, avoiding rituals, or staying with her parents were not grave enough to justify divorce.
A significant factor was the wife’s reply notice, in which she expressed willingness to resume marital life provided the husband assured her of care, maintenance, and fidelity. The Court found these to be reasonable marital expectations, not cruelty, thereby undermining the claim of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Relying on the landmark case Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975), the Court stressed that divorce cannot be granted merely because the other spouse does not contest; evidence must independently prove cruelty of a serious nature.
Upholding the Family Court’s decision, the High Court concluded that neither cruelty nor desertion had been proved and dismissed the husband’s appeal.
Case: Jitendra Jani vs Smt Bhumi Jani – Available on LAWFYI.IO
