Temperamental differences no ground for divorce: HC

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court said “temperamental differences” cannot be the ground for divorce. Such differences could qualify as general wear and tear in married life, the court said.

Hearing an appeal moved by one Ajay Chavan which challenged the order of the family court, Pune, a division bench of Justice Amjad Sayed and Justice Manish Pitale gave the verdict recently.

The Pune court had in January 2009 turned down Chavan’s divorce plea. In his petition, Chavan said his wife had tortured and harassed him mentally. He also alleged that his wife has been forcing him to reside separately and away from his parents.

However, the court did not find any merit in Ajay's contentions and junked his plea. Aggrieved by the orders, Chavan then moved the high court.

After going through the evidence on record, the judges noted that the first legal notice sent by Chavan to his wife was only within 15 days of the birth of their first child. They noted that in the very first legal notice, Chavan had not made a single mention about his allegations against his wife of harassment or seeking separate residence.

"The legal notice demonstrates that there were certain temperamental differences between the husband and the wife. In our view, this could qualify as irritation and general wear and tear in married life. The differences of opinion between the wife and the parents of the husband can occur because she is a new person in the family," the judges said.

"It is evident that the husband (Ajay) has failed to show that conduct of his wife is so abnormal and below acceptable norms that he cannot reasonably be expected to put up with it. It appears that there were temperamental differences between the husband and the wife, but only this factor cannot entitle a husband for a decree of divorce," they said.

"We find that the family court is justified in holding that the ground of separate residence claimed by the husband, as the basis for cruelty, was an afterthought and that he failed to prove that he was entitled to a decree of divorce. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed," the judges added.

“We find that the family court is justified in holding that the ground of separate residence claimed by the husband, as the basis for cruelty, was an afterthought and that he failed to prove that he was entitled to a decree of divorce.” Justice Amjad Sayed and Justice Manish Pitale