Husband and wife living in same house but different rooms not cruelty by itself: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently held that merely occupying separate rooms in the same premises does not, by itself, constitute matrimonial cruelty.

A Bench of Justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan said that such separation can assume significance when viewed alongside the broader matrimonial history of a couple.

The Court noted that the husband in this case himself had admitted that the parties had occupied separate rooms for a considerable period.

“Standing by itself, such an arrangement cannot be treated as cruelty. The mere fact that spouses occupy separate rooms, without anything more, would not justify a finding of cruelty."

It held that the separation could not be viewed in isolation and formed part of a prolonged matrimonial history involving repeated disputes, allegations of abuse, estrangement, an earlier matrimonial proceeding and the eventual failure of the relationship.

The Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a man against a family court verdict which dissolved his marriage with his wife on the ground of cruelty and directed him to pay permanent alimony of ₹25,000 per month.

The couple were married since November 11, 2001 and had two children. The wife alleged that the husband subjected her to physical, verbal and emotional cruelty, neglected her and the children, and displayed suspicious and possessive behaviour. She also alleged that he had distanced her from her family members and relatives.

Although the parties continued to reside in the same building for some time, they occupied separate rooms and were, in substance, living separate lives. She eventually left the matrimonial home along with the children.

The husband denied the allegations. He alleged that the wife was influenced by her parents and other relatives and was herself responsible for the deterioration of the matrimonial relationship.

The Bench said that the wife's evidence regarding repeated quarrels, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, the husband's suspicious and possessive conduct, the parties living separately under the same roof, his alleged habits and failed attempts at reconciliation had to be assessed along with the husband's own admissions and the surrounding circumstances.

It rejected the husband's contention that the wife's earlier Section 498-A IPC complaint, which had ended in his acquittal, should itself be treated as matrimonial cruelty.

“The mere filing of a criminal complaint by one spouse against the other does not, in every case, amount to matrimonial cruelty,” the Bench held.

It further observed that an acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, lead to a conclusion that the complaint was false or malicious.

In the present case, the Court noted that the complaint had been made against the backdrop of prolonged matrimonial discord, following which family members intervened and the parties attempted to resume their matrimonial life. The reconciliation ultimately failed.

The Court said that these circumstances could not be considered as isolated incidents and their significance lay in their continuity and cumulative effect on the matrimonial relationship.

“A spouse cannot be expected to endure, for an indefinite period, conduct which causes sustained mental pain and destroys the basic elements of companionship, trust and matrimonial security,” the Bench observed.

It held that the cumulative effect of these circumstances is sufficient to establish mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court also upheld the family court's direction requiring him to pay ₹25,000 per month as permanent alimony. It held that the wife's employment and income, by themselves, would not disentitle her from receiving permanent alimony.

Advocate SG Muniswamy Gowda represented the husband.

Advocate Swaroop S represented the wife.

[Read Order]