Rajasthan High Court Upholds Family Court Decision, Dismisses Divorce Appeal by Retired Principal
The Rajasthan High Court has firmly dismissed a divorce appeal filed by a 75-year-old retired government school principal, stressing that long-standing marriages cannot be dissolved over late-life property disputes. The court upheld a family court's 2019 decision that rejected the principal's plea, noting that trivial irritations and quarrels are common in most families and do not constitute grounds for cruelty to grant a divorce.
Background of the Long-Standing Marriage
The couple tied the knot on June 29, 1967, in a marriage solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Nearly 47 years later, on May 26, 2014, the husband applied for the dissolution of the marriage. The family court rejected this petition on October 18, 2019. The couple has three children—two sons and a daughter—all of whom are now married and settled.
Court's Detailed Observations and Legal Grounds
A division bench comprising Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anil Kumar Upman delivered the order on February 9, holding that no case of cruelty was established under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court observed that both parties had crossed the age of 75 years and expressed concern that the appellant sought to dissolve the marriage at such an advanced age.
The dispute appeared to have arisen primarily from a disagreement over the division of family property. The husband alleged that his wife intended to transfer an immovable property solely to their elder son, whereas he desired an equal division between both sons. This property conflict was cited as a key issue in the appeal.
Arguments Presented by the Appellant's Counsel
Mohit Khandelwal, the appellant's counsel, argued that the wife had lodged an FIR against him in 2014 under Sections 498A (dowry harassment), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. The husband claimed this caused him humiliation and mental harassment, especially after retirement. However, police later submitted a negative final report, indicating that no offence was established.
Khandelwal contended that the filing of a false criminal case and the levelling of allegations amounted to mental cruelty. He asserted that the very act of lodging the FIR constituted sufficient grounds for divorce, emphasizing the emotional toll on his client.
Court's Final Ruling and Emphasis on Marital Stability
In its ruling, the High Court underscored the importance of preserving long-standing marriages, particularly in later stages of life. The bench highlighted that minor disputes and property disagreements are not valid reasons to dissolve a marriage that has endured for decades. The court reaffirmed the family court's decision, dismissing the appeal and reinforcing the principle that marriages should not be easily terminated over late-life conflicts.
This case serves as a significant precedent, emphasizing the judiciary's role in safeguarding marital bonds and discouraging frivolous divorce petitions based on property disputes or transient issues.
