Infertility Not a Ground for Divorce, Rules Patna High Court, Upholds Decree on Cruelty
The Patna High Court has ruled that childlessness cannot by itself be a ground for divorce, even when a couple has undergone prolonged infertility treatment. The court, however, upheld the dissolution of a marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty, emphasising that the relationship had become irretrievably damaged due to conduct, not the inability to have children.
Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Chandra Shekhar Jha were hearing a wife's appeal against a family court judgment that granted her husband a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The couple married on June 12, 2010, and for years sought medical help including multiple IVF procedures in hopes of conceiving. The high court directed the husband, an assistant teacher, to pay permanent alimony of Rs 34.76 lakh to the woman.
“Marriage is not dissolved because the spouses failed to have children, nor is divorce granted merely because the parties have remained separated for a long time. The decree is sustained because, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, the matrimonial relationship reached a stage where mutual trust completely disappeared, serious criminal litigation ensued, reconciliation repeatedly failed and the cumulative conduct established mental cruelty,” the court said on July 10.
The court clarified that the years-long struggle with infertility only formed the backdrop to the dispute and was never, by itself, a legal ground to dissolve the marriage. Medical records showed that both spouses actively participated in treatment and made sustained efforts to conceive. The husband testified that he spent money for the treatment and accompanied his wife to consultations. The wife admitted during cross-examination that he had participated and borne expenses.
The judges acknowledged the emotional pressure infertility can place on a marriage, observing that it often leads to frustration and strain. However, the medical records did not blame either spouse nor establish matrimonial cruelty.
In 2018, the wife lodged a criminal case accusing the husband and his family of attempt to murder and dowry harassment. She alleged physical assault and pressure to consent to a second marriage. The husband maintained the allegations were false and made after marital relations had broken down. The criminal case ended in acquittal after a full trial.
The high court noted that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically disprove cruelty in a matrimonial dispute, as criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt while civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities. The bench held that when serious criminal allegations remain unproved after years of litigation, that fact becomes important in assessing whether the marriage can continue.
“An acquittal only means that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It does not automatically mean that there was no cruelty in the matrimonial relationship,” the court stated.
