In a landmark judgment, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court recently ruled that the consumption of alcohol by a wife does not amount to cruelty to the husband unless it leads to unwarranted or uncivilized behavior. The Court emphasized that societal perceptions regarding alcohol consumption, especially in middle-class families, are evolving and cannot be generalized to determine acts of cruelty in matrimonial disputes.

---

Case Background

The case involved a husband who filed for divorce from his wife, citing allegations of cruelty and desertion. The couple had married in 2015 after meeting on a matrimonial website. The husband argued that his wife used to go out with friends without informing him and consumed alcohol, which he claimed constituted cruelty.

In 2016, the wife, along with their son, left the matrimonial home in Lucknow to reside in Kolkata. Despite the husband’s requests for her to return, she refused. The family court in Lucknow rejected the husband’s plea for divorce, prompting him to file an appeal in the High Court.

---

High Court’s Observations

A Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Om Prakash Shukla addressed the husband’s appeal. The Court examined the grounds of cruelty and *desertion, highlighting their mutual exclusivity as separate grounds for divorce under the *Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

1. Consumption of Alcohol Does Not Constitute Cruelty

The Court held that consuming alcohol, in itself, cannot be deemed as cruelty unless it leads to inappropriate or harmful behavior. The bench noted:

“Consuming of alcohol by itself does not amount to cruelty, if it is not followed by unwarranted & uncivilized behavior.”

The judgment further acknowledged the evolving societal norms regarding alcohol consumption, particularly in middle-class households. However, the Court observed that no evidence was presented to demonstrate how the wife’s consumption of alcohol caused cruelty to the husband.

The family court had previously pointed out that there were no allegations or records showing that the wife’s alcohol consumption impacted her pregnancy, the child’s health, or her responsibilities as a mother.

2. Alleged Phone Calls and Outings with Friends

The husband also claimed that the wife received phone calls from male friends and went out without informing him. However, the High Court found no evidence to substantiate these claims or prove that they amounted to cruelty.

3. Lack of Evidence of Cruelty

The Court concluded that the husband failed to provide specific instances or dates where the alleged acts of cruelty occurred.

“This Court is in agreement with the findings returned by the learned Family Court that the Appellant/Husband was not able to prove as to what act or instances and on which date and/or period, any cruelty was inflicted on him.”

---

Desertion as a Ground for Divorce

While dismissing the allegations of cruelty, the Court ruled in favor of the husband on the grounds of desertion under Section 13 of the HMA.

Key Findings on Desertion:

• The wife had been living separately since 2016, taking their child with her.
• Despite the husband’s repeated requests for reconciliation, the wife refused to return to the matrimonial home without reasonable cause.
• The wife’s prolonged separation and non-participation in the legal proceedings indicated her intention to permanently abandon the marital relationship.

The Court stated:

“Her refusal to join the company of her husband also amounts to willful neglect in view of the explanation appended to Section 13 of the HMA, 1955.”

The wife’s non-response to the appeal further reinforced the Court’s decision to grant the divorce.

---

Legal Analysis

The Allahabad High Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach in assessing allegations of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act. Here are some key takeaways:

1. Cruelty Requires Specific Evidence:

• The ruling underscores that vague or unsubstantiated claims of cruelty cannot be grounds for divorce. Specific instances, supported by evidence, are essential to prove cruelty.

1. Evolving Societal Norms:

• The judgment highlights the importance of considering changing societal attitudes, particularly regarding issues like alcohol consumption, which may no longer carry the same stigma in certain segments of society.

1. Desertion as a Serious Ground:

• The Court reaffirmed that desertion involves not only physical separation but also the willful neglect of marital duties without reasonable cause.

1. Non-Participation in Legal Proceedings:

• A party’s absence from legal proceedings can significantly impact the outcome, as seen in this case where the wife’s non-participation indicated her lack of interest in continuing the marriage.

---

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling sets an important precedent in matrimonial law by delineating the boundaries of what constitutes cruelty and desertion. It also emphasizes the need for concrete evidence in divorce cases, ensuring fairness and preventing misuse of legal provisions.

For middle-class families, the judgment may help in reducing stigma associated with certain lifestyle choices, like alcohol consumption, when they do not adversely impact marital responsibilities.

Moreover, the case highlights the importance of engaging in legal proceedings, as non-participation can result in adverse outcomes.

Also Read:

• Internship Opportunity at Chambers of Adv. Mahak Rathee
• Call for Blogs by Centre for Law and Urban Development, NLU Delhi
• IPR Internship Opportunity for Law Students
• Virtual Legal Internship by VRG Legal
• Assessment Internship Opportunity at Debtfrie
• Call for Papers for Shimla Law Review (SLR) Vol. VII by HPNLU Shimla
• Law Researcher Vacancy at Delhi High Court