The Allahabad High Court, in a recent order, observed that the manner in which a married couple behaves in the privacy of their relationship does not fall within the jurisdiction of the courts unless they are acts ex of extreme cruelty and depravity.

The High Court, while dealing with a divorce case, said that “what are the personal tastes, preferences and habits, the acts which a party to a marriage may feel inclined to practice and indulge in? and wanting their partner to participate, within the confines of that relationship as well. involving intimate moments is not for the Court to explore or examine unless they involve acts of ex facie extreme cruelty and/or depravity. »

A bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh made the observation while dealing with an appeal filed by a woman against the divorce granted by a lower court when the matter was initiated by the husband before even the end of a year of marriage.

“We leave it to the best judgment of the parties to a marriage to find appropriate ways to adapt and behave in such situations. It is sufficient to note this, simply because the respondent may have different behavioral preferences for acting in intimate moments than those desired by the appellant, may remain a matter which can be better resolved by the parties to the marriage without any intervention ever being proposed by the Court of Justice,” the court observed.

The High Court made these observations while dealing with the alleged cruelty on the part of the wife, which the husband had made a ground for divorce.

While quashing the charge of cruelty against the wife, the High Court further observed that the trial court had completely erred in failing to record a cogent finding on the issue of cruelty based on the pleadings and the evidence in the file. And the conclusion recorded by the trial court is based on extraneous considerations which had absolutely no bearing on the issue before it.

“The manner in which the appellant (wife) behaved during the legal proceedings and how fiercely she fought to resist the dissolution of her marriage can never be construed as cruel behavior towards of the appellant (husband). ),” the court said.

On the issue of cruelty, the High Court said the trial court had only observed the behavior of the woman who had opposed the divorce. The wife had filed 3-4 cases against her husband for resisting the divorce, which was not the cruelty alleged by the husband.

“It did not find any cruelty committed by the applicant (woman) in the matrimonial relationship formed by the parties. It only referred to and invoked the behavior of the applicant during the legal proceedings, to the extent that it noted that The appellant filed 3-4 suits against the respondent and filed a review petition against the order passed in the legal proceedings between the parties It was not the cruelty alleged by the respondent, that was. extraneous to the dispute,” observed the High Court.

The court noted that the couple got married in 1999 and just after 11 months the husband filed for divorce. A family court granted the divorce by allowing the husband’s plea in 2015. The husband had cited cruelty as grounds for divorce.

Contesting the divorce, the wife argued that the petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the husband was not admissible because it was filed within one year of the date of marriage.

The court recognized that filing for divorce within one year of marriage is not permissible under the Hindu Marriage Act.