Woman’s refusal to wear veil no ground for divorce: Allahabad HC

However, the court granted divorce on the other ground that husband and wife had been living separately for more than 23 years now

The Allahabad high court has held that a wife’s decision to not wear ‘parda’ (veil) in public does not amount to cruelty and is no ground for seeking divorce.

The man had sought dissolution of his marriage alleging cruelty and desertion. (For Representation)

In this backdrop, the court rejected a man’s claim that his wife’s refusal to observe traditional customs and her free-spirited behaviour constituted grounds for divorce.

However, the court granted divorce on the other ground that husband and wife had been living separately for more than 23 years now.

A division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh emphasised that such actions cannot be deemed cruel, especially in a modern context where both parties are educated professionals — the husband an engineer and the wife a government teacher.

The court noted that differing life perspectives and behaviours do not automatically meet the legal threshold for cruelty.

The man had sought dissolution of his marriage alleging cruelty and desertion. The couple, married in 1990, lived together until 1996 before separating permanently. Despite it, the wife refused to give her consent to a divorce, leading to prolonged litigation.

The man argued that his wife’s behaviour, including going out without wearing veil and interacting independently in society, violated his expectations and caused mental cruelty. However, the court found no merit in these claims.

“Differences in perception towards life may give rise to different behaviours by individuals. Such differences of perception and behaviour may be described as cruel by the others by observing the behaviour of another. At the same time, such perceptions are neither absolute nor such as may themselves give rise to allegations of cruelty unless observed and proven facts are such as may be recognised in law to be acts of cruelty,” said the division bench.

The court, however, recognised that the long separation of over 23 years and the wife’s refusal to reconcile constituted desertion. While addressing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the court ruled that such prolonged separation inflicted mutual emotional harm, making the continuation of the marriage unsustainable.

Allowing the man’s appeal, the high court in its judgment dated December 10, 2024, set aside a 2004 court’s decision that had dismissed the man’s divorce petition.