Gist of the Case

The Tripura High Court has set aside a divorce decree granted in favour of an Army personnel, holding that the husband failed to establish that his wife had treated him with cruelty. The Court observed that filing a domestic violence case or staying separately at the parental home cannot, by itself, be treated as matrimonial cruelty. The Bench also stressed that cruelty has to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from MAT App. No. 24 of 2025, Smt. ********* v. Sri **********. The appeal was filed by wife challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Dharmanagar, which had granted divorce to her husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court judgment was delivered on September 24, 2026, by Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit.

The parties married on February 3, 2017. The husband was serving in the Indian Army and, shortly after the marriage, was posted outside the State. According to him, his wife frequently left the matrimonial home, quarrelled with him and his family members, objected to his communication with his parents and eventually stayed at her parental home. He also relied upon her filing of a domestic violence case as one of the circumstances constituting cruelty.

The wife disputed these allegations and alleged that she had been subjected to mental and physical harassment relating to dowry. She had approached the authorities seeking maintenance and residential rights. In the domestic violence proceedings, an order was passed directing the husband to pay Rupees 11,000 per month as maintenance. The Army authorities had also earlier directed deductions from the husband’s salary towards maintenance for the wife and their son.

Arguments

Counsel for the wife argued that the Family Court had relied on assumptions and had treated ordinary matrimonial disagreements and her domestic violence proceedings as acts of cruelty. It was submitted that the husband had not filed any proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights and that his prolonged absence from the State was itself connected with the circumstances in which the parties lived separately.

The wife also argued that the independent witnesses produced by the husband did not support his allegations of cruelty. She maintained that her filing of a domestic violence case could not itself constitute cruelty in a divorce proceeding.

On the other hand, the husband’s counsel argued that the wife had failed to discharge her marital responsibilities, frequently stayed at her parental home and had caused mental distress to the husband. It was contended that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the divorce decree should not be interfered with.

Decision of the High Court

The Division Bench found that the independent witnesses examined on behalf of the husband did not support his allegations of cruelty. The Court also noted that the husband was serving in the Army and was required to remain posted outside the State for considerable periods. In such circumstances, the wife had to manage matrimonial and domestic responsibilities in his absence.

The Court further observed that the wife had herself approached the Court seeking a residential order, which indicated that she was interested in staying at her matrimonial home. The husband had also not sought restitution of conjugal rights. The Court therefore held that the evidence did not establish that the wife was deliberately reluctant to live with her husband.

On the domestic violence proceedings, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja and held that an order passed in a domestic violence proceeding is relevant evidence in a civil proceeding, although its evidentiary value is limited. The Family Court, therefore, had erred in treating the wife’s domestic violence proceedings as an act of cruelty.

The High Court reiterated that cruelty is not defined under the Hindu Marriage Act and that conduct must be assessed in the context of the particular facts of each case. The Court held that the husband, who was seeking divorce, had failed to discharge the burden of establishing cruelty.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the wife’s appeal and set aside the Family Court’s judgment dated August 29, 2025 and the consequential decree dated September 1, 2025 granting divorce to the husband. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.