HC: Refusing sex during honeymoon not cruelty

The Bombay High Court has ruled that refusing to have intercourse during honeymoon does not amount to cruelty, while setting aside a family court judgement dissolving the marriage of a couple on this ground.

The court also ruled that a wife donning shirt and pant to office occasionally and going out of town for office work soon after marriage also would not amount to cruelty towards her husband.

“Married life should be assessed as a whole and few isolated instances over certain period will not amount to cruelty,” observed justices V K Tahilramani and P N Deshmukh in an order early this week.

“The ill-conduct must proceed for a fairly lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live any longer with the other party (which) may amount to mental cruelty,” the bench said.

Trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on ground of cruelty, the court held.

“Only sustained unjustified and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty. There is no evidence to that effect in the present case”, the bench noted.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a 29-year-old wife who was aggrieved by a family court order of December 2012, passing a divorce decree on a plea made by her husband on the grounds of cruelty.

After their marriage in 2009, the couple went to Mahabaleshwar for honeymoon and it was the case of the husband that he tried to consummate the marriage but the wife did not allow him to do so.