Latest Judgement

1. INTRODUCTION
   The Indian courts recognize that demanding judgment for privacy, when invoked by one spouse as justification for divorce, does not constitute cruelty sufficient to support dissolution. This article examines the doctrinal implications of treating “privacy by spouse” as a legitimate ground for divorce, and explores how the judiciary should navigate competing values of marital privacy and fault-based dissolution.
2. BACKGROUND
   a. FAULT-BASED DIVORCE AS A LEGAL MECHANISM
   Fault-based divorce statutes traditionally enumerate specific grounds—such as adultery, cruelty, and abandonment for dissolution of marriage. Courts have long treated cruelty as a flexible category, encompassing physical and mental harm.b. EMERGENCE OF PRIVACY-BASED DEMANDS
   In modern relationships, a spouse’s insistence on privacy, refusal to share finances, social spaces, or personal information, can generate significant marital strain. Some judgements have come to regard this behavior as falling under cruelty, while others resist expanding statutory definitions.

   c. DEMAND OF PRIVACY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CRUELTY
   The trial court accepted that the spouse’s seclusion and withholding of information caused “mental anguish.” On appeal, however, the higher court held that the privacy demand, without additional deliberate intent to harm, does not rise to cruelty. It emphasized that solitude and autonomy are not inherently abusive.

3. ANALYSIS
   a. DEFINITIONAL BOUNDARIES OF CRUELTY
   i. HISTORICAL SCOPE. Cruelty traditionally requires conduct intentionally or recklessly causing physical or mental suffering. Mere privacy or withdrawal lacks the requisite malice.ii. PRIVACY VS. MENTAL CRUELTY. Courts must distinguish between legitimate privacy rights and actions that inflict undue emotional harm.

   b. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
   i. RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY.
   Recognizing legitimate privacy protects individual autonomy within marriage.

   ii. RISK OF OVERREACH.
   Allowing claims of mere privacy demand to qualify as cruelty may dilute the doctrinal clarity of fault, inviting mischaracterized disputes.

   c. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR COURTS
   To properly assess whether privacy demands constitute cruelty, courts should apply a tripartite test:

   i. INTENTIONALITY—Was the demand aimed to inflict emotional harm?

   ii. SEVERITY—Did the conduct result in significant and sustained mental injury?

   iii. CONTEXT—Is the privacy request reasonable under marital norms?

4. CONCLUSION
   Under Indian laws, demand of privacy is not a ground for divorce. Courts should uphold individual autonomy while avoiding doctrinal erosion by insisting on a showing of intentional mental harm. A structured test—focusing on intent, severity, and context—ensures that only genuinely harmful conduct qualifies. Preserving the integrity of cruelty as a fault ground upholds both legal clarity and equitable treatment within marital dissolution proceedings.This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, practicing divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. This article is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer/advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.