Cruelty Must Be So Grave That It Becomes Impossible to Continue Marriage: Andhra Pradesh High Court on Divorce Under the Indian Divorce Act

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by N. Manikya Rao, who sought a divorce from his wife, Smt. Lillian Swaroopa, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 10(1)(ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The Court upheld the Family Court’s decision rejecting the divorce, emphasizing that mere allegations of mistreatment, without substantial proof, cannot be a valid basis for dissolving a marriage.

Husband Alleges Cruelty and Desertion; Wife Claims Husband Had an Extramarital Affair
The appellant-husband argued that his wife had become influenced by her sister’s lifestyle, constantly compared their financial status, and frequently left the matrimonial home, causing him mental agony. He alleged that she had filed false complaints against him, refused conjugal relations, and encouraged their children to act against him. He claimed that she permanently left in 2008 and did not return, thus deserting him for over two years before filing for divorce.

The respondent-wife, however, refuted these claims. She stated that they had lived together until 2009 and that she had to move out due to the husband’s extramarital relationship with another woman, Kumari. She also argued that the property in Saidabad was jointly purchased, and she was entitled to stay there. According to her, the real issue was not cruelty or desertion but the husband’s attempt to remove her from the house and sever all ties without justification.

"Petty Quarrels and Disagreements Do Not Constitute Cruelty" – High Court Finds No Evidence to Support Husband’s Claims
The High Court analyzed the allegations and found that the appellant had failed to provide any substantial evidence of cruelty. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, the Court reiterated: "Cruelty must be so grave and weighty that it makes it impossible for the petitioner to continue cohabiting with the spouse. Mere quarrels, irritations, and disagreements, however frequent, do not amount to cruelty."

The Court further cited Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, where it was held that: "The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other must be so severe and prolonged that it leads to mental cruelty. A few isolated incidents over a period of years do not justify divorce."

Finding no independent witness or documentary proof to support the husband's claims, the High Court ruled that the appellant had not established that the wife’s behavior was cruel enough to justify divorce.

"Living in a Separate Portion of the Same House Does Not Amount to Desertion" 
The husband’s claim of desertion since 2008 was also dismissed. The Court found that the wife was living in the same house but in a separate portion, as per court orders in a Domestic Violence Case (DVC No. 120 of 2010). The High Court made it clear that: "Desertion must be intentional, without reasonable cause, and must continue for at least two years before the filing of the petition. Living separately within the same household under court orders cannot be equated with desertion."

Since the husband failed to produce any witness to confirm his claim that the wife had abandoned the marriage without cause, the Court held that he had not met the legal threshold required for divorce on the grounds of desertion.

"Marriage Cannot Be Dissolved Solely on One Spouse’s Dissatisfaction"
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court ruled that the Family Court had rightly rejected the divorce petition, as the husband failed to prove cruelty or desertion. The Court observed: "Marriage is built on tolerance and mutual adjustment. Divorce cannot be granted merely because one spouse feels unhappy or dissatisfied. There must be clear and convincing evidence of cruelty or desertion, which is absent in this case."
The Court also rejected the husband’s reliance on Rakesh Raman vs. Kavitha, where the Supreme Court had dissolved a marriage after 25 years of separation. The Court held that this precedent did not apply, as the couple in the present case had not been apart for such an extended period.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that divorce cannot be granted lightly or merely on allegations of discord. The decision upholds the sanctity of marriage and emphasizes that legal separation requires strict proof of cruelty or desertion, not just claims of dissatisfaction or conflicts between spouses.

Date of decision: 07March 2025