Jaipur, Feb. 15 -- The Rajasthan high court's Jaipur bench has refused to dissolve a 58-year-old marriage, holding that "trivial irritations, quarrels and normal wear and tear of married life" cannot amount to cruelty sufficient to grant divorce. A division bench comprising justices Anil Kumar Upman and Sudesh Bansal delivered the ruling on Friday, upholding a 2019 order of the family court in Bharatpur that had dismissed the husband's divorce petition. The court observed that minor disagreements and property disputes within a family do not justify breaking a long-standing marriage, particularly at advanced age. "Ordinarily, trivial irritation, quarrels and normal wear and tear of married life, which ordinarily happens in day-to-day life in all families, do not constitute a ground of cruelty to pass a decree of divorce," the bench said. The couple married in 1967 and lived together until 2013 without any recorded dispute. They have two sons and a daughter, all of whom are adults and married. The husband, now 75 and a retired principal of a government school, filed for divorce in 2014, months after his wife lodged an FIR against him under Sections 498A (dowry harassment), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 323/34 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC. Although police later filed a negative final report after investigation, the husband argued that the FIR caused him humiliation and damaged his reputation. The husband further alleged that his wife was under the influence of their eldest son, Virendra Singh, and was inclined to transfer immovable property in the son's name, whereas he wanted the property divided equally between his sons. During arguments, the wife countered that her husband had been involved in several extramarital affairs. She also accused him of being in the habit of squandering family property. According to her, she and their eldest son protested to prevent misuse of property, which led to the divorce petition. She maintained that the disputed property was purchased and registered in her own name. Finding no reason to interfere with the 2019 judgment, the bench dismissed the appeal....