Rajasthan HC refuses divorce to 75-year-old retired principal after 59-year marriage

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan high court dismissed a divorce appeal filed by a 75-year-old retired govt school principal stressing that long-standing marriages cannot be dissolved over late-life property disputes.

HC upheld a family court's decision that rejected the principal's plea and noted that trivial irritations and quarrels ordinarily happen in most families, and do not constitute a ground for cruelty to pass a decree of divorce.


The couple got married on June 29, 1967. Nearly 47 years later, on May 26, 2014, the husband applied for dissolution of the marriage. The family court rejected it in 2019. The couple has 3 children—2 sons and a daughter—who are now married.

A division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anil Kumar Upman, in its order on Feb 9 held that no case of cruelty was made out under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

"It was argued that the wife lodged FIR against him in 2014 under Sections 498A (dowry harassment), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC, which he claimed caused him humiliation and mental harassment after retirement. However, police later submitted a negative final report, indicating that no offence was established," said Mohit Khandelwal, the appellant's counsel.

Khandelwal also cited a dispute over family property, alleging that his wife intended to transfer an immovable property to their elder son alone, whereas he wanted it divided equally between both sons. "Filing of a false criminal case and levelling of allegations amounted to mental cruelty. The very act of lodging the FIR constituted sufficient ground for divorce," he added.

However, the family court dismissed the divorce petition on Oct 18, 2019.

HC observed that both the parties had crossed the age of 75 years and that their marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. "But the appellant wants to pursue for dissolution of his marriage even after attaining such advanced age," the court said.

The court further observed the dispute appeared to have arisen mainly from disagreement over division of property between the sons.